Ms Tannehill: Thank you for your service. I am sorry that this has happened, and all I can think is: what a waste: of talent (yours), skills (yours), potential (yours and what good it does for the country), and time and money (spent training you).
This decision by the S.Ct. makes no sense to me unless looked at as a big gift to Pence, Trump, and the base that supports them and fears and hates anyone who isn't a straight white male Christian. There is no conscription, and I would think that anyone, male, female, transgender, gay or straight, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, who could meet the military's entrance requirements would be welcomed with open arms. I read that the Army has been having a hard time meeting their recruitment quotas, yet now the military has to throw out all transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines because of Pence's religious beliefs and Trump's promises to his base. What a shame, for you, for the military, and for the country.
5
it's a shame the justices couldn't be identified by name and the way they voted.
1
Our military cannot afford to lose such qualified and honorable soldiers. This president's hatred of anything that makes his base squirm is getting extremely tiresome as well as dangerous. I did not vote for him. I saw his racist, xenophobic, anti-science, misogynistic, prejudiced ignorance embraced by deplorables and emblazoned on "news" media that capitalized on his shock value. Now, here we are.
2
GOP dug their political grave with those who are not white heterosexual male.
Stick in the eye hurts, end of the day, you have courageous to be true to yourself.
Hold your head up high!
1
Re: "...The Supreme Court Just Ended My Military Career
The justices chose not to protect the rights of transgender patriots like me..."
I have mixed feelings: on 1 hand...I applaud you're service!
One reason I've NEVER voted 'Republican' can be summoned, up, by the embarrassment, felt, via two, (2), names: Mike and Karen Pence! ...I'm 'hetero', B.T.W.!!
That being said...and despite the fact that I'm NOT authorized to speak for 359 coworkers, vaporized on 11.Sept.,2001, in Lwr. Manhattan...I have to ask:
What exactly is the 'current, pitiful, excuse', for the 17 year, 'N, counting-search, for imaginary N.-W.M.D.'s in Iraq, and...why would you want, to serve, in such a dishonorable effort???
And do the Pro_Life_Jihadies realize that the 500,000th. (Iraqi), civila, aka, 'Collateral, Damaged' to borrow, (a Geo. W. Bush-phrase), has just, been tabulated??
How many human deaths is enough?
It wasn't the Supreme Court, it was Trump. We have to stop blaming judges for political decisions.
6
@Jube
The problem with that is the Supreme Court is making decisions based on political decisions, not the law. Lower courts have stayed Trumps order, and Scotus decided to uphold Trump's ban due to political considerations...the lower courts have all ruled the ban is unconstitutional, normally if lower courts rule that a law is unconstitutional the court will keep the stay in place. Scotus has effectively put Trumps ban back in place, and that same 5-4 majority can refuse to hear an appeal of the lower court decision and de facto keep their stay in place indefinitely (yes, they can do that). more importantly, you think the troglodytes on the court will rule that the transgender ban is unconstititional? This is a group who think that religion is a perfect basis for law.
11
@Jube Is Trump on the Supreme Court? Last I checked, he isn't. They made the decision, not him. And four of the nine justices thought it was a bad idea.
What you seem to be missing is that not only did the justices decide, but they did so for political reasons.
Normally, SCOTUS upholds procedure, as in if it has been found that the government hasn't followed its own rules, then the government shouldn't be allowed to do what they did.
And here, that is exactly the case. Trump's decision, is the classic 'arbitrary and capricious' move by an oppressive government. In ending the ban before Trump, there was extensive research and deliberation. Trump, otoh, made the decision on his own, without any research or deliberation or consultation.
If a President can arbitrarily decide to change laws, we don't have much of a democratic process, and he has effectively proclaimed himself king.
12
I would like to know how many transgender people this not-being-able-to-serve-in-the-military is actually affecting. How many can there be? I would like it quantified.
Let's note that I live in San Francisco, where if you don't know a transgender person, you probably know someone who does. I am not shocked or disturbed by the fact.
All well and good. To each s/his own. But it does occur to me that the author of this article could have waited to transition until the obviously very important military career was over.
There is a lot of "at my own expense" and "time off work" to do what is described as imperative "research" here. Most people have to wait until they retire to do what they have always wanted to do. One's transitioning shouldn't be any different from my goal of living on a boat in the Indonesian Ocean. I have to work FOR that. I can't decide one day to buy a boat "at my own expense" and sail around and expect to come back to work whenever I want.
3
John Roberts is transparently political, and fools no one. Because Trump lost, for now, on DACA and on the census citizenship question, Roberts allows this unconstitutional decision, to throw a carrot to the right wing. Either transgenderism is legal or illegal in the military, and by allowing current transgender soldiers to continue to serve, he reveals what an unlawful this decision is: they are criminals but not criminals.
We see you, Roberts. The Court should continue to be attacked, and the Chief Justice, who is making a mockery of it, should continue to be held to account.
I - and I'm sure many, many others - am confused: If Ms. Tannehill has "transitioned," doesn't that mean she is a transsexual? Has she had her exterior reproductive organs removed/altered?
If she is a transsexual, isn't that a separate issue from being transgender? Are transgenders and transsexuals the same thing in the eyes of the military?
Because, in my understanding, there is a big difference between those two things in the eyes of the LGBTQ+ community.
When these people can come up with one definition that we can all understand, maybe that'll help as they try to achieve acceptance?
And, as a trans-whatever, isn't Ms. Tannehill going to be required to take daily hormone medication in support of her new... Reality?
Diabetics can't join the military, because they need daily medication. If they're in a combat zone and can't get their meds, that would be a truly tragic and dangerous thing.
Is the same not true for trans-folks?
This is all very confusing. Please, a little consistency! That's all those of us who are trying to understand are asking for.
1
Your bravery cannot be taken away by anyone. You will always have that. It is yours. And this has nothing to do with your military service. The right of anyone being able to serve and participate in our democracy is in jeopardy when someone like you is banned. I am ashamed because I did not do more to prevent. Our society has let you down. I am sorry.
35
@JuniorK. No one has a "right" to serve in the military. Here the left goes again with it's ever expanding idea of what constitutes a right. I tried serving once and rejected me because I said I had some minor back problems. They don't want to put up with any nonsense, and a gaping wound in the undercarriage that is to be nurtured is a much bigger liability than my minor back problems. I don't have sympathy for this person. People who chose to be a distraction do not need to serve in our military. I can anticipate a leftist saying, they don't see themselves as a distraction, which isn't the point. One's own construction of identity is completely irrelevant, it's more about does the person fit in with the community of people who need to be ready for lethal action without worry of a member being a distraction. Generals said it doesn't affect readiness, because they are trained to say nothing affects them, that there are no obstacles. And leftists think of that as proof that they are not a distraction. Please. No one has a right to serve. You have to be accepted, and anyone complaining about discrimination about this needs to get their panties out of a bunch.
1
A friend of mine got booted out of the Air Force 30 or 35 years ago because he was gay. Our tax dollars in an amount way over $1,000,000 trained him, and his performance on the job was impeccable. The prejudices of a vocal minority outweighed our common sense.
Now, 30 or 35 years later, we have figured it out with regard to gay people. In another decade or two we will figure it out with regard to transgender people. The same old crowd that was behind the times when the military was integrated by President Truman, and that was behind the times in the case of gays in the service, will just move on to something else to express their prejudices against.
In so many areas, the difference between a progressive and a conservative is 20 years or so.
29
The Obama Administration side-stepped Congress and the regulatory process to create a policy based on rigged analyses. It did the same for integrating women into front line infantry positions (ignoring the peer-reviewed study done by and for the Marine Corps).
Ignoring science to advance a political agenda is not a good plan. But doing so by policy instead of legislation leaves it open to being reversed.
But let's be honest. peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that transgender people, whether they transition or not, have a 40% higher suicide rate than the general population. Knowing that, why would the military bring a high-risk group into service and give them weapons?
Beyond that, why should the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs pay for a lifetime of medical and psychological care for a person whose condition is not an illness or injury as a result of military service?
7
Cadet Bone Spurs the draft dodger panders to religious right to deprive the military with talented professionals whose skills support our national security. Considering Trump is a lying con artist suspected of being a Russian agent busy threatening the family of a witness like Cohen before congress ,Mr. Tannehill is needed more than our chaotic president
3
I would be willing to fight tooth and nail for equal rights for trans people.
I certainly would not be willing to fight for the rights for someone to serve in the US military.
I can not fathom how someone that would want to serve the US military would then expect to be treated as an equal human being.
This is completely nonsensical.
1
Count yourself lucky you're no longer in the empire business.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Too many of us are complicit in the rise of bigotry in the age of Trump. Because many of us have not supplied the rope, we might imagine that we are absolved of being present, inactive, and standing by the lynch mob. I admire Ms. Tannehill's courage and understand it as a call to action.
27
@Warren Light, Esq. Oh Please. There is no paucity of people speaking out against perceived discrimination, regardless of if it's truth. And comparing bans to the military with death at a concentration camp is more than a bit dramatic. When we allow anyone to serve in our military, then we should worry about our freedoms not being secured.
5
Good. Military service is not a right, and they have can pick and choose who enlists in their ranks.
I hope this ban eventually reverts back to "Don't ask Don't tell".
3
This regrettable decision, has the defect of pandering to the Religious Right and that means the ' High Court ' is violating the separation of Church and State. They have proven themselves incompetent.
2
The turn around in this country regarding gay people was largely driven by scientific findings that homosexuality is genetically based. Thus, homosexuality is as "natural" as heterosexuality -- not a matter of choice but mother nature's minority position. These findings, thankfully, opened the door to the widespread cultural acceptance of homosexuality in this country from which we all benefit today.
But is this true of transgender people? Is the need to dress as the opposite sex and/or inhabit the body of the opposite sex genetically driven or a choice? It seems to me the latter, and because the latter I question whether the rest of society -- including the military -- must accommodate itself to this individual choice.
5
@Barry Schreibman
Not to mention other circumstances that are at least partially genetically based, such as being too tall, too short, too fat, too skinny, etc., all of which can be obstacles to joining the armed forces. While this particular Trump administration policy may be poorly conceived, it seems ill-advised to talk as if anyone has a "right" to serve in the military, anymore than anyone has a right to send a resume to a private employer and expect that they will automatically be made a job offer.
3
True enough. However, when one is established to be qualified for the job and turned down for orthogonal reasons, that qualifies as unfair, if not discriminatory
You are mistaken. As the article states, the case for transgender equality is evidence based. Here is a science podcast about why modern medicine believes transgenderism is innate, not a choice. The case is quite clear. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/science-vs/id1051557000?mt=2&i=1000425757061
1
This American epoch will be historic for its pointless cruelty. The US begins to rival other chauvinistic authoritarian states.
7
So I'm like the only person who sees a danger of putting people who underwent body changing surgery through extreme stress
6
At one time it was claimed that racial segregation of the military was necessary.
How was that argument different from the argument today about trans serving in the military.
Trump's ban on trans serving is just throwing red meat to his base.
The 5 conservative Justices just wanted to give Trump a victory with this ruling on trans serving.
6
Brynn. Thank you for your service to our country. Being a transgender, did not prevent you from serving. Further, you served for more than a decade. Like you, there are many others, in the same situation. In some form or the other, you have all contributed to keeping our country safe. All of that is now going away, unappreciated or recognized.
In what way has our transgender members in the US armed forces, posed a security risk, or proved incapable to serve?
The decision of the SCOTUS may be seen as a victory to the President. How real is this a victory. Is this an action within one's conscience? Is this not another item added to the growing list of 'discrimination' we see around us?
This is all so very disappointing. Even shameful to think that one person's view of the world, is now a policy. It is not even a view held by the majority of the people. What would it be, if the subject was placed in the elections, for voters to decide. Should that not be an ideal approach to address a sensitive issue as we have all read in this Opinion?
1
This is a horrific waste of training, talent, and expertise. We need to find a way to reverse this pointless policy. We should not allow members of our military who are willing and able to serve to be cast aside just because they are transgender.
5
The military requires able bodies. Hormone replacement therapy and getting parts cut off on the tax payer dime does not meet that criteria.
7
@Removes Kebabs
Let's see your medical degree and peer-reviewed research to verify that claim.
2
Just another blatant disregard for human rights by the GOP. Just another day in a Republican run White House. When will it no longer be "Just another day"? Probably when we finally repeal "Citizens United" and out the power of our democracy back in the hands of those that it was intended to represent.
4
When you've put your base together over decades by appealing to bigotry and ignorance, and most of them voted for you because you agreed with their prejudices--we've got research on that--you have to give 'em something from time to time to keep their loyalty.
3
First, the author makes clear she has her treatment at her own expose please expense. Second, where is your medically valid evidence to support your assumption?
Impeach Donald Trump and remove Neil Gorsuch and Bart Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court; both of them are tainted appointments. This SCOTUS decision just shows the damage that Trump has done to our core institutions and yet we let it continue.
Democrats, we cannot wait until 2020 to vote him out, the damage this dumpster has done to our country is immeasurable and it's only been two years! We might not survive another two.
6
Understand that you could hook Roberts up to a lie detector and he'd pass on his vows that the court is politically neutral and that race no longer matters in voting rights.
It goes all the way down in the Republican party, it contaminates way more decisions than this one, and it won't go away just by decapitating its current loathsome head.
2
This is a despicable, deplorable decision. Hopefully when trump leaves office in disgrace and bound for prison, all things he touched, including his (and McConnell's) illegal SCOTUS picks will simply be "annulled." (Thanks, Robert Reich for that wonderful and very needed term...)
2
You have my sympathy, Ms. Tannehill. Both the ban and the court decision have the purpose of satisfying the religious right at the expense of real lives, real human beings, and undermining our military. I'm pretty sure that good black hawk pilots don't come out of the woodwork.
59
“Their decision signals a weakening of any shelter transgender people might find under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.” The EPC doesn’t include sexual orientation or gender identity, only sex, which these two are not. He can continue to serve in the military as the gender he was born as.
4
@Billie Lewis
In other words, give up his right to be who he is.
Would you forswear your sexual orientation in such a situation?
"If this were through some failing of mine, I could accept it. But it speaks volumes about where we are as a country that the opportunity for many to serve should be denied by the prejudices of a few"
It does speak volumes about where we are as a country that when the majority voted for Hillary Clinton we wound up with Trump because of the Electoral College and various quirks in our electoral system. It says even more when one looks at what many Americans want from their government versus what the government is doing.
We did not elect our representatives to serve themselves or their rich donors or to be at the beck and call of the richest in the nation, corporations or individuals. They are elected to serve ALL of us no matter who we voted for. They are wasting taxpayer dollars and forcing others into desperate positions that are not of their own making. It's taken nearly 40 years but the GOP (especially the GOP in partnering with the Koch Brothers, the Adelsons, the Mercers and others) has created a true kakistocracy. This administration is headed by a conman and running the country into the ground.
The saddest part of all is that there are smart, talented people out there who do want to serve their country. Trump and the Greedy Obnoxious Patriarchy are the least patriotic people in America now. Their actions are driving away the people who want to serve. It's the 21st century, but you wouldn't know it by the conduct of our elected officials in DC.
4
It is the Trump administration -- not the Supreme Court -- whose actions may have "ended your military career."
The Supreme Court, as you noted in passing, may very well have been addressing the nation-wide injunction that conservatives believe is improper.
3
This decision will, one hopes, signal the end of lower courts making decisions that they attempt to apply outside of their jurisdictions. The decision of a district court should be binding within that district. The decision of a circuit court should be binding within that circuit. Outside of those jurisdictions, those decisions should be considered persuasive at most. Only decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on the entire country.
This ruling is a first step to the return to how things were designed to be run, and one can hope that further rulings or, even better, legislation will cement this.
3
@mikecody
Precedent can be set in any court.
Whether it is binding or not depends upon how other courts interpret it.
Your dry post misses the point that these decisions affect actual human beings.
4
@Jerry Engelbach As a paralegal, I was taught the technical difference between binding and persuasive precedent. Precedent is binding if it is issued by a superior court which has jurisdiction over the court in question. Precedent set at the same level, or by superior courts in other jurisdictions, are persuasive but not binding. Decisions overturning or supporting executive decisions should be held to the same standards; a 9th Circuit stay should be valid in the 9th Circuit.
2
This decision, whether primarily related to lower court injunctions or not, is defective. It would not have occurred if Republicans had not stolen Merrick Garland's seat on the SC.
This hurts the country as a whole, because we invested in you, Ms. Tannehill, and others who are transgender. If a person has been declared fit to serve then that person should be allowed to serve regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
Thank you for your service and for your efforts to continue to serve. I hope we will see you back in uniform yet.
6
Let's try to make lemonade out of lemons. Perhaps in the time period between the SC decision to stay Trump's decision while it is on appeal and the final case reaching the SC, the conservative Justices will see through many stories like Brynn Tannehill's how unfair and unjust the Trump policy is to transgender military personnel (past, present, and future).
If they truly consider all the actual evidence, which is antithetical to the cooked up Trump rationale, they should decide the case in favor of the Obama rules. It's the most one can hope for.
1
An American patriot willing to sacrifice their liberty so we can have ours is a hero. Transgender men and women have always served in the military. They are our veterans and our heroes. They have died for our country. They have chosen to give up their personal liberty for a while, so we can enjoy ours forever. Allow transgender Americans the privilege to serve https://wp.me/p2qifI-4sE
3
I think the VA recently got increased funding to treat extreme cases of PTSD, like the case exhibited here by Ms. Tannehill.
2
This is Trump playing to his base. Base is the perfect description.
7
The country weeps—or it should be weeping.
4
Does anyone think that appointment of a transgender Justice to the Supreme Court would adversely affect the Court's readiness or destroy unit cohesion?
4
I still don't understand how a treasonous lout - a man under an internal investigation for committing several felonies including conspiracy against the United States - was able to have anyone whatsoever appointed to the Supreme Court, let alone the abysmal choices made.
Now the GOP is so revved up in gearing for a third that Fox "News" inadvertently announced in advance Justice Ginsburg's demise.
They are a disgrace. I would file a petition for a recall of Kavanaugh but this administration would simply remove it from the petition web site now that we're under autocratic rule by an unhinged criminal.
4
No surprise here....ignorance and hatred from a dumbed down Presidency and a SCOTUS whose right wing majority was solidified by theft from the people.
5
The comments option was not available when I initially read this opinion piece. I am dismayed by the Supreme Court's decision. I thank Brynn Tannehill for this heartfelt and eloquent piece. And I thank Tannehill for her service to this country--service that many others prefer to avoid. This court (the majority, that is) and this administration deny the evidence showing that a transgender ban has no logical basis. I hope that some day this country will be much less puritanical. Sexual orientation is much more fluid than people realize or even want to admit. What is so scary about this idea?
4
Dear Ms. Tannehill:
Your statement is incorrect. As reported only yesterday in this venue, the Supreme Court vacated a nation-wide injunction while cases challenging the substance of the new rule (already filed) move forward. Thus, whether the rule will stand, or fall, remains to be seen, and has in no way been "decided."
As further reported here yesterday,
"The administration also asked the justices to hear immediate appeals from the two trial court rulings blocking the policy before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, rules on whether to affirm one of them. But the court turned down those requests without comment.
Advocates for transgender rights welcomed the court’s decision not to hear the appeals from the trial courts, which could have led to an expedited decision on the administration’s policy.
“In declining to hear these cases, the Supreme Court saw through the administration’s contrived efforts to gin up a national crisis,” said Jennifer L. Levi, the director of the Transgender Rights Project of GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders."
While I sympathize with your position, and thank you for your service to our nation, your continued ability to serve remains an open question at this moment in time. Hopefully you'll get the answer you are looking for.
5
@alexander hamilton
The SCOTUS was as usual divided between the Justices who take civil rights seriously and those who oppose them.
This was no victory for transgenders.
The bigot, demagogue Trump at his worst with the Supreme Court, at least for the moment backing him up.
2
A true embarrassment. The bigots of this country are trying to strip away all groups that they do not like and who are different from them . Who's next? Which ethnic group?
1
This is utterly ridiculous! How can a small group of men spend so much time to come up with a decision like this one! How! Anyone who places themselves in the center of a policy as ludicrous as this one has got to be the most perfect being for armed service as anyone I have ever known. The people, the judges, who have turned this into something utterly senseless are acting out of political will. They should be ashamed of themselves and promptly removed from the Supreme Court!
2
Brynn is cheated out of his career and our country loses when quality people are turned away from serving our country. We all lose. Another giant step backward for our country under the narrow minded and bigoted president. What a shame.
2
The military spent thousands of dollars to teach Brynn Tannehill how to fly a helicopter and now because of a Presidents obvious prejudice he is no longer welcome in the Navy. Transgender is not the same as bone spurs.
The stupidity of this President continues to dismay me.
5
The court is showing its true irrational bent. One more branch of government gone to the trash heap.
2
Our criminal, (6000 people in a class action suit over being defrauded by him - Trump University), amoral (would you be friends with anyone who cheated on his wife just months after she birthed a son?), treasonous (loyal to his Russian business interests above our country), complete failure (shuts the government because of Ann Coulter!) of a "President" (did they change the definition while I wasn't looking?)…
With his made up bone spur excuse for avoiding service (is there anyone in their right mind who still believes anything he says?)…
Is not fit…
To lick the bottom of the boot of any American patriot who sacrifices and displays all the qualities he lacks in proud service to The United States of America.
Serving my country.
Your country.
All our country.
Regardless of our biological imperitives.
None of anyone's business.
Go away Trump.
Go away you foreign thing, you abomination, embarrassment, destroyer of lives.
Go away and leave the decent people of America alone.
At long last… go.
We will celebrate our liberation.
3
@Paul King
While the general thrust of your comment is on target, a class action suit is not a criminal matter.
Brynn, you have written a compelling column and I hope you can resolve the issues you write to. Thank you for your service. It is unfortunate that America has been offered an outlet for many of its people's discrimination through this fool who has become president.
The comments favor you by a wide margin which is encouraging. Trump is the worst kind of rabble rouser and a truly pathetic coward.
4
As I've found increasingly frequently in the NYT, the polemic headline does not match the facts of the article. Tannehill graduated the Academy in 1997 and left active duty in 2008, two full years before even beginning the gender transition process. I seriously doubt that any 43 year old who left active service a decade ago, and has been on IRR status (no pay, no training, no duties) for five years is likely to resume flying Blackhawks, transgender or not. Real issues are raised in the article, but the headline strongly suggests a personal story that does not match the one I subsequently read. I am sincerely interested in the topic but the NYT seems to be treating me like an idiot here. I encourage the editors to reconsider some of their decisions.
5
@Marc Schuhl
Fighter pilots can be up to 55 years old. I'm sure it's not less than that for a helicopter pilot.
1
The thought of this makes me sick to my stomach. There is no reasonable justification for this. The bigots said Blacks and Whites could serve THEIR country together, how silly is that now? The bigots said gays and lesbians should not be able to serve THEIR country, how silly is that now?
We keep making the same mistakes because of bigotry.
2
As an ex-Marine and a VietNam veteran, I am firmly against transgenders in the military. At the time of my service, there was very little to no privacy in the barracks and in the field, such that I can't begin to imagine just how a transgender individual would fit in. There was a communal shower in the barracks, and the toilet stalls had no doors. In VietNam there was even less privacy. How could such a person fit in?
And the military has been disgraced by Bradley Manning, the transgender traitor, and probably others! There are clearly mental health issues with these people. There are simply two genders, male XY and female XX, with extremely rare genetic and anatomic exceptions. You either accept the way that you were created, or you make a fool of yourself trying to be what you are not. Unfortunately, we live in an age of political correctness, with politicians like Obama catering the transgender community by pardoning Manning and the U.S. government paying for his cosmetic surgery.This whole issue is a comic tragedy.
7
@Michael
@Michael
Wow, this is a tough one. Ms. Tannehill is now a woman. There were women serving in Viet Nam, weren't there? How DID you ever manage? What's it to you if Ms. Tannehill bunks with the women instead of with you?
Last time I looked, Blackhawk helicopters fly ground support missions, providing air cover for soldiers and Marines just like you. Before calling for air support, are you taught to specify that you only want a male pilot? Doubt it. Would you accept a life-saving blood transfusion from a transgender individual? If not, there's a M*A*S*H episode specifically about people like you.
I'm no fan of Private Manning, either, but that case has nothing to do with this one. You can see that, right?
2
I'm not quite getting the anger at the transsexuals. Who cares? How would you even know who was transsexual if they didn't tell you first?
1
Look, Trump and his mob need scapegoats: sadists feel like they are suffocating when they can't inflict pain. It is called narcissistic supply.
After the Nazis annihilated the Jews, they then went after the Romany (gypsies), then Poles, then physically or mentally disabled. It never ended, because it couldn't. The mob hatred depends on the scapegoats. You can't have one without the other. So, anybody who is "different" in any way will eventually be a victim of Trump's America.
3
If the left hadn’t made such an issue about this, perhaps this would have never happened. Did you know there are more midgets in this country than transgender people? I have never heard a single word in my 43 years on earth about midget rights.
3
@Mike
Most "little people" are not midgets, but dwarfs.
Height requirements for certain jobs are based on the jobs' technical considerations, not discrimination.
You might want to study up on the rights of people with dwarfism.
https://www.lpaonline.org
The cost of Viagra prescriptions far outweigh the cost of transgender meds.
2
Oh My God, get over yourself.
You think, because you're transgender, you have some special right to consistency or justice or full participation in this great country?
From this political club of a SCOTUS?
For Pete's sake nobody else gets that stuff, why would you?
You act like you're a citizen or something.
C'mon, man.
2
Another despicable action in support of a despicable president and his minions to discriminate against any in this country who are not straight white males in response to what they perceive as a challenge to their manhood.
1
The greatest good for the greatest number.
2
If women and men are both accepted into our military, why should there be a ban on a transgender person willing, able, and ready to fight for our country? If a persons gender didn’t matter before, why should it matter now? Whatever trumps reason was to come up with this ridiculous idea, it only proves he’s not just homophobic, he’s a total bigot. Is he going to do the same with the rest of the gay military community? Don’t doubt that’s where he’ll go next.
2
Trump probably is appealing to the strict morality of his evangelical base.
The irony of course is that Jesus Himself said "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword."
The early Christians had a saying: Better to take the sword from Caesar [ie execution] than to bear the sword for Caesar.
American evangelicals idolize both the state and the military. They don't worship Jesus at all.
And we can thank Trump for revealing who they really are: ordinary people who crave money and power:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=275603286634205&set=a.110438003150735&type=3&theater
2
There is so much ignorance in our country. Perhaps some of it is willful, some is not. In any case it makes for happy pickings for those who use prejudice, misinformation, and anger to gain and maintain power. There can be no other reason to ban transgendered people from serving our country than prejudice. Haven't we been here before?
2
The word 'patriot' is just a politicians' way of helping to signup some kids to fight a war other than his wealthier supporters. bring back a fair draft and end so called patriotism.
3
The ban is nothing but pure bigotry and the idea of a coward in the Oval Office kowtowing to his evangelical base.
We need a new president and a new administration desperately. Who knows what other heinous "decisions" Trump will make in the next two years. This ban has no legitimate basis and even the military brass opposed it. It's just hate, nothing more and nothing less. Hate should have no place in our country or its government.
4
For those who whine about the military paying for operations covering transitioning, I want to ask if that doesn't seem like a fair price for someone who is willing to put their life on the line isn't it?
3
@Sam
They would be taking a slot away from another person who is equally qualified and equally willing to put their life on the line.
2
@rella There isn't room for both? What is your problem - and you do have one if you feel this way - about transgender people? If you are fearful of them as using their being transgendered as an excuse to go into the ladies room and molest your daughters that you have more to fear from your clergy, their males coaches - and worst of all, male relatives.
1
I was not aware that there were an oversupply of people ready, able and willing to serve in this fashion.
This has nothing to do with you, this is only red meat thrown to maintain the hatred of his base. The base that is comprised of racists and Evangelists, to keep those people happy, they crave their ability to crucify those "others". When you are small and powerless you need to make others smaller and more powerless. They equally hate all, without any care of the consequences.
3
A Roberts 5 beauty. Get ready for another one on guns soon. House, please investigate Kavanaugh's testimony.
2
Wow, the only time Trump will actually save lives by his discrimination agenda. What a strange world we live in.
1
Not only has trump and SCOTUS stepped on our Constitution in an attempt to delete it from our protection from a faulty government, but now they are stomping on the Declaration of Independence, which promised us with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This “transgender ban” is only ONE of the reasons why the democrats were arguing a conservative republican stacked SCOTUS. “Trumps” justices admitted they would do this. What’s next? Roe v Wade? Thankfully, the states are taking that under their wings.
2
It's not shocking to me how much the Trump administration hates the military. He proved himself on the campaign trail when he attacked a Gold Star family.
What is shocking to me is how many Americans are okay with it.
2
Americans non military.
Most could care less who joins.
As long as sons and daughters are not exposed to a Draft again.
But trump wants a military coup and dictatorship and a military force he designs.
Sick. Pathetic
I am sorry for all the families he is destroying
Mutiny against him military.
Do not allow our demise.
2
This was a sorry decision caused by a vile president. I and many tens of millions of your fellow citizens thank you for your service. I pray this personal nightmare will be settled in your favor soon.
3
The hypocrisy, racism and down right hateful, mean-spiritedness of this administration knows no bounds. Women's rights, voting rights, minorities, etc. Trump and his cronies, such as Mitch McConnell, won't stop until they've successfully put everything, including our democracy, completely into the hands of a few old, super rich, white guys.
Stop voting for Republicans and we can stop this sinister downward spiral.
3
It is my OPINION, (feel that's necessary given some attacks on opinion in the last decade), that if ANYONE wants to fight for the country, that we should not only accept their willingness to sacrifice for the nation, but praise their bravery, regardless of anything that makes them different. However, the military should not be a free ride towards gender reassignment. Here, my impression is that everything is already done as they explicitly stated, "at my own expense," so to deny their service is asinine. Furthermore, to imply that Repubs are against civil rights entirely is entirely false. Their moral ground is just established by Christianity, generally speaking. Both sides are getting censored a lot lately. Its getting ot of hand, to be honest.
My 2 cents.
2
@Pliny
A lot of people join the military for the benefits: education, travel, medical care.
There's no reason to exclude transgenders.
A reasonable policy would be a requirement for new recruits who identify as transgender to agree to postpone any medical procedures related to gender reassignment until after their active duty commitment has been fulfilled. This agreement would not apply to time served in the Guard, Reserves or IRR.
One objective of military personnel policies should be the goal of 100% deployable status during active duty. In April, 2018, the Commandant of the Marine Corps said that only 27 Marines identified as transgender. The debate is about a small number of people because the other services probably have similar numbers.
3
A man with no inclination or ability to serve gets to decide who serves?
Anyone who puts on the colors and serves with honor should get everyone's respect. Respect being something Trump does not understand either.
7
Trump has shown no inclination now or in the past for treating all people fairly. It would be bad enough if, as some of those commenting on this opinion piece, Trump was motivated by personal malice and prejudice. But it is more likely that he has acted to appeal to avowed bigots on the political and evangelical right whose support he will need in 2020. In doing so he is carrying on an opportunist tradition within the GOP begun as least as far back as Saint Ronny (Reagan). Reagan did nothing to stop the scourge of AIDS when it was primarily confined to gay men despite the fact that he had many close friends that were gay in Hollywood.
4
Thank you for your service.
And I hope that all servicemen and women will vote to oust every GOPer in 2020, that's the only way we can bring sanity to our country.
8
Thanks to Mitch McConnell, we now have a Supreme Court Incorporated that will decide for us who the real Americans are.
I’m not sure that is what the founding fathers had in mind.
6
One big question I have for the author is if the United States tax payers covered your health care costs for the "transitioning?"
10
Does your employer cover your healthcare insurance costs?
4
@Nature Voter The author clearly states in the second paragraph, that it was at their own expense. Side note, member in the IRR are not provided medical insurance.
2
In the second paragraph, The author clearly states that this was done at his own personal expense.
1
Let me see if I understand this. A person who, used his money and family contacts to avoid military service in a shooting war (11,000 Kia in one year1968) feels that the military should reject some people who are willing to stand up for their country and are willingly take a bullet for it because they just aren’t his sort. What’s next? Rejecting some of his Secret Service team because he doesn’t like their shoes? Makes as much sense as not paying them.
A veteran is someone who has written a blank check to his country payable for up to their life.
PS I am a Vietnam Vet.
14
Bryn you have every right to serve in the military but why anyone with morality want to serve in the Imperialist military?
Join the Revolution Bryn.
M
5
If a baker in Colorado can clam religious descrimination and win in front of the Supreme Court with far less tangible evidence than this, I think a patriot like yourself, who is called to serve and if need be die for their country ought to have their rights similarly defended.
8
My hope is the hateful, cruel, and despicable people that make up this administration will be remembered for the monsters they are. History will not be kind to the likes of Trump or Stephen Miller who have exposed themselves for the truly tiny people they are.
6
It is not the duty of the American military and the American people to pay for hormone treatment and sex change operations.
Many transgender people join because they can get free medical treatment which they cannot afford because of the high expense
of such treatment.
While undergoing some of this treatment they are unable to perform their military duties.
It is sad that the case reported here is not part of this problem
but is an exception which might be given some sort of dispensation.
8
@Art
I don't think you have any reliable information to back up your claim.
Health care should be a right, paid out of general taxes.
That should include transition surgery.
There seems to be much confusion here. There are still active challenges to the ban; SCOTUS simply decided that the ban can remain in effect in the meantime. The chapter is not closed.
1
@Mack
Four justices on the Supreme Court disagree with you.
The ban should never have been instituted in the first place.
Brynn,
How sadly ironic that you are willing to defend a country that has a bigoted "president" (who dodged the draft due to "bone spurs") and 5 spineless Supreme Court "judges" who refuse to defend your rights. They are ignorant cowards. On the other hand, you are very brave, and I thank you for your service.
7
We never learn do we? “Blacks can’t serve alongside whites. It will destroy unit cohesion”. I’m the future we may not look back at the transgender argument and think how stupid it was only because SCOTUS will likely end the argument once and for all. I can’t help but wonder what this court would decide if Loving v. Virginia were on its docket.
7
What Brynn has not stated in her appeal is the amount of human potential and real dollars of investment (via training) the transgender ban tosses into the wastebasket. I taught at the Naval Academy. Only the very best of the very best get admitted, who then receive very demanding and very expensive training. All down the toilet-- for what? Because of some snit fit from a septuagenarian whose worldview is about 5 centuries out of date? God save us from this monster.
179
You speak of God, might I remind you that God made men and women who and what they are, there is no way that God is okay with a made up fantasy of switching genders. Serving in our nations military comes with much sacrifice, for these people that arent acceptable of their natural born gender, go find another line of work and let the people that respect God and his guidance take care of business.
4
@doogie You have no more authority interpreting the mind of god than the next person who has contemplated that question. And I say life is far larger and God's heart more magnificent than the very human interpretation of God codified 2,000 years ago in a book used for political as well as spiritual goals by a particular people.
47
@doogie Please read the Constitution again:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
28
Mitch McConnell ended the military careers of transgenders by blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland and installing Neil Gorsuch. It won't matter if the lower Court responds.
7
The writer speaks of animus, and he’s absolutely right. For the first time in history, in policy after policy, our President is guilty of being cruel for simple cruelty’s sake. Separating families at the border, keeping federal workers from paychecks, giving aid and comfort to racists, our president is simply a cruel human being.
8
How ironic that the coward in chief, who used five deferments and a “bone spur” to duck service, implements a policy that prevents true and proven patriots from serving themselves. Now that is deplorable!
6
I do not understand. Someone please explain it to me? What harm these officoals may do to our military? Apparently they are very commited to perform their duties very well , like every decent human being, so why their professional services are been denied because of their sexuality? So iit means that as long as you do not open up your sexualityl so uou are free to serve right? What kind of hypocrisy is It? " We the People ", please wake up! This is embarrassing!
4
It saddens me to read of your plight and the devastating decisions make by thoughtless people that will have dire effects on thousands of fellow citizens. Trump, Pence and Miller are consumed and obsessed by ferreting out any individuals who are vulnerable or different from them in order to overtly seize their rights and dignity. Their agenda has been personal, they finally attained the power to break and punish those they fear. I never expected to live in a time when the sole purpose of the president has been devoted to distraction, suppression, division and instilling fear. There are no goals that include the possibility of improving the lives of all Americans. Nothing good has come to fruition with the unholy Trinity of Trump, Pence and Miller. Add Mitch Mc Connell and the Quartet will go down in history as the most damaging in US history.
4
I assume by the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court that 5 conservative Catholic justices supported Trump's decision to remove transgender individuals from the military. The Catholic church is incredibly backward in its views on human sexuality yet so forgiving and secretive in their own clergy's sexual crimes. Why is it not surprising at all that the 5 conservative Catholic justices would make this verdict? When Trump is gone, an expansion of the Supreme Court will be necessary to reduce the influence of these conservative Catholic justices.
3
There are people serving on the Supreme Court who don't know what it means to be an American. There are five of them. My heart is breaking.
5
Trump is not an enlightened individual, he has never had to deal with any significant challenges that his money has not enabled him to resolve without much thought. Sexual identity is simply beyond his interests. He is perfectly content to dismiss transgender people as outside the norms and not being accepted by his political base.
2
Brynn Tannehill's story is heartbreaking, maddening, disturbing and poignant. Tannehill has put his life on the line to save the bacon of a people who elected a warmongering malingerer to lead them. But Commander Bone Spurs says "No!"
The Washington post's Eugene Robinson has recently pointed out the pervading and gratuitous cruelty that drives this president and the policies of his benighted administration.
Tannehill calls out such policy as pointless and devoid of any serious background study. By now I have accepted the reality that our president is the hollow shell of a cruel, mean spirit.
Perhaps I have been naïve, but I never suspected that the 35-40% critical mass of my compatriots share the mean-spiritedness of a President who seems to display no redeeming quality whatsoever.
91
@John lebaron It is Ms. Brynn Tannehill; ie., she, not he.
12
Military members have to make many sacrifices, could you have waited to transition after you retired, that's reasonable considering all the sacrifices people make in the Armed Forces
2
this is the reality we face in our country, a bunch of machos who either dodged the draft with a bogus medical excuse(you know who), openly brag about avoiding the draft by joining the national guard. read the lists of those who manufactured and started the Afganistan and Iraq war(invasion according to some), how many have you noticed those who served in the Army run the show? we have close to five thousand dead and 32,000 wounded in action Americans as a result of the Iraq War alone as of 6-2016. those numbers are the American casualty who served, not dodged.
we all know it is easy to brag about the Patriotism, Bravado and Great America but who are those sweating and suffer?
3
"Cruel, pointlessness" sums up most of this administrations policies. Throw meat to the "base" occasionally, along with daily lies. What a tragedy.
4
The history of the American military has repeatedly shown that all able-bodied and committed adults who can perform meritoriously as soldiers, should be allowed to serve, despite waves of opposition to select ethnic groups.
First, American services segregated blacks from whites, until World War II's demands to win allowed integration.
Then, women were excluded, and that exclusion became overturned.
Then, homosexuals were not allowed to serve, and that became relaxed.
All of these groups served honorably and meritoriously.
And now, transgender persons are being excluded again from military service, despite their commitment and patriotism. Thus, the message continues to ring out: transgenders are inferior, incapable, mentally defective and criminally prone American adults who should be marginalized in our society. Without any evidence. But that is the Trump administration for you.
71
When will Civil Rights be reversed and slavery made legal again? I am sure the GOP whipped by POTUS is on the job.
This must be the most painful moment in history. United Nations should expel USA and move out of NY.
5
@quirkoffate I think there is a real role for the Hauge here... just starting with the separation of children from their parents.
3
Brynn,
The Supreme Court just made the perfectly legitimate choice to enable a ban on "transgender" in the military.
You can still do anything else you want to do.
Just go and do it.
1
@Michael
No, five man made that decision.
Another three women and a man disagreed.
You cannot take away someone's rights and tell them to just go do something else.
@Jerry Engelbach
Not to state what is obvious but:
Being the the United States Military, or being in any organization at all, is not a right.
To belong to organizations certain criteria must be met.
Perhaps this seems "unfair" in today's world where nobody is actually unloading soldiers on our shores.
But, in a real war, we don't need confused troops. Well, any more than war makes anyone confused.
1
The Court has entered a ruling that is absolutely sickening. I understand that this is not the ruling on the final merits; however, as an attorney I also understand that interim relief such as this is often a signal as to how the court will ultimately rule.
We who value human rights, civil rights, equal opportunities, and an end to discrimination have been far too silent. Hispanic infants and children in cages, on our soil? Well, not our families. The exponential increase in hate crimes against ethnic and religious minorities? Well, if we're white and Christian, not our problem, right? This is exactly where the majority of us are now.
We do not understand that we must protest mistreatment of any of us -- whether it be a transgender person, or a person of an ethnic or religious minority. Their suffering should be our suffering. And so far, we've not done nearly enough on behalf of those who have suffered under this administration, simply by virtue of who they are.
And Trump has a very cynical, but clear understanding of this. He knows that the majority of us will simply continue to sit at home, when his hateful decisions hurt folks other than ourselves. We of course will disagree, but we will do nothing. Two years on, and we are silent but for a few marches that have, in effect, been simply media events.
Does anyone honestly believe he or she is safe from this tyrant? Hitler did go after anyone whom he believed to be a "political enemy". And any of us could be next.
7
We have had too many sad days for America over the past two years. Sick with disgust over what we have become.
3
Bryan, this country is not worthy of your sacrifice; and it no longer will have mine.
2
I am so sorry Brynn. This is utterly disgraceful, bigoted and unjustified. Thank you for all the work you have put in on behalf of transgender people across the States, and good luck going forward. Know that people are behind you and cheering you on.
4
This decision is disregarding Transgender as a person. It's wrong.
5 conservative judges and Trump make this awful decision.
I am a shame to be an American.
4
I hereby call for insurrection. Removal of these illegitimately appointed justices, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by any means necessary.
3
Trump ended your military career. The justices simply weighed the issue of Presidential authority over the military. He has full authority.
I am a former Army Ranger, and I would have been perfectly happy with you serving with me. If you had my back, and pulled your weight, then you would be my brother (or sister) in green. Please remember who actually made the decision. It wasn't the Supreme Court; they simply decided if the President CAN make the decision.
7
@Chris Even the President can not give unlawful commands.Full authority in our democratic system implies lawful and responsible.
Our checks& balances provide necessary safeguards against an aberrant President.
1
@John
In theory, yes.
But as we are seeing, in practice all those safeguards are for naught.
1
One more time when "Freedom" comes with strings attached. There should only be one criterion for military service; can you do the job as required. Isn't this just straight up discrimination?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not let someone do a job; you can't be a doctor without the education, you can't fly a plane without a license. Should we not permit gay doctors or straight pilots?
Isn't equality for all something we have been working on in our country for the last sixty years? Are we going to deny the opportunity to serve in our military because of sexual orientation?
I think we need to expand "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Think of all the problems we have on this earth that are caused by people judging others. Perhaps judgment is the root of all evil.
The only requirements for military service should be compliance, honesty and a desire to serve our country.
I think we forget the trans people are people. Each person needs to be seen individually not as "one of them." I worry that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
5
Evidently our "best in the world" military personnel are believed by the Donald to be too sensitive to be able to work with transgender people. Sad.
5
The Trump administration is all about making people suffer.
It is just beyond belief that the tens of thousands who have served our nation with honor and courage are being treated with such hatred and disdain.
Just despicable!
I am embarrassed for our nation.
4
Chelsea Manning did not help the cause. I have no problem with transgenders in the military unless they are pre-op and expecting the military to pay for their surgery...which, from what I've heard, is often the case.
1
@rpe123
Other military personnel have their medical costs covered.
It's discrimination to refuse them to transgenders.
Robert's court is a sham. Where is the justice for all? Where is all men are created equal? A bunch of close-minded conservatives that aren't fit to judge a football game.
2
The headline misplaces primary blame. There should be no mistake about it: Donald Trump ended Ms. Tannehill's military career. However much we might have preferred that the Supreme Court block Trump's move, the fact remains that it was Trump's move.
This is another one in a long list of Trump initiatives that reveal his true colors - he is not about economic populism, nor about national security (either border security or military readiness), nor about illegal immigration. He is about identity politics: specifically, returning America to a time when power was the province of white Christian heterosexual men. Under Trumpism, it is not the job of white Christian heterosexual men to accommodate other people; it's up to everyone else to do all of the accommodating.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
4
Ms. Tannehill has gotten a free college education that cost the taxpayers half a million dollars, gotten flight training worth several million dollars, and is mad that she doesn't get more out of the taxpayers.
The author has apparently become confused about service and entitlement. Nobody is entitled to a military career. The purpose of the military is a credible threat of unacceptable violence. It's not about the social reforms that was pushed on the military for the last two decades ... the last two decades in which we lost 5 wars against much weaker foes.
2
@John
You have it backwards.
It's Trump and the GOP that are wasting the investment in Ms. Tannehill's abilities.
Experienced people who have been trained by the military and served with honor certainly are entitled to a military career.
Every transgender military member should sue the government for discrimination. They have been deprived of their civil rights by the very body that is supposed to serve to protect those rights. I think all Americans should fear this Court because we don't know who they might turn on next.
1
Let the men and women in uniform vote ya or nay. It is after all a very prestigious club. Ppl get rejected for all kinds of reasons all the time. Stop the double standards too. If you can’t do the required PFT then sorry you can’t serve. There are lots of ways to serve your country. This decision effects the troops so let them decide if they want transgenders marching with them.
2
So much for Robert's claim that there are no Obama judges or True judges!
1
We must realize that cruelty is the point, the only point, of many of this regime's policies.
2
So much for Justice Roberts' protests to the contrary about the politicization of the US Supreme Court. 5 - 4 huh? As dubious as 'Don't ask - don't tell' might be - it's was a more honest approach to preservation of rights than this flawed majority call by the black-robed oracles.
I can no longer tolerate Republicans of any kind for their support of religious theocracy here in our country which has enshrined in the constitution the separation of church and state. I have come to believe that religion is the rich stateless libertarians greatest tool for promoting fascism. I will give today to numerous organizations dedicated to the separation of church and state because it is illegal to do some of the things I'd actually like to do. These miserable excuse for Americans, from the MAGA hat catholic teens brought to Washington with the express desire to further the goal of controlling womens bodies to the statesmen now guilty of espionage against our country, they must be stopped and their activities punished. Where was law enforcement for the last 50 years while these dangerous Christians illegally took such deep control of our country? Why no scrutiny of political activity which is expressly forbidden? We need to get tough with these religions and put them back in their place, out of politics. I suggest they've been committing violence against the secular for too long and they expect us to constantly "turn the other cheek?" It is time to call this religious activity what it is, illegal according to the constitution of the United States. I would also suggest a litmus test for all Democratic candidates for office. The removal of the 2 illegal SCOTUS member and the impeachment of a 3rd. I'm not supporting any candidate that doesn't have that as a policy
1
My best to you Ms Tannhille, and thank you for your brave pursuit of Justice. Those who follow will appreciate it. On the bright side, you will no longer be serving under a despicable cowardly commander in chief who does not deserve to place himself over the brave men and women of our armed forces. These things too shall pass.
1
This is Evangelical "Christianity" at it's finest. Check off that campaign pledge and count on monies for your 2020 Campaign Trump. Never mind that the military brass holds a very different view from this POTUS and his "Christain" friends on this issue and that the Majority of American Society supports our Troops-ALL of its members. Mitch McCon: don't ever lament partisanship and the political divide: just as Trump owns the shutdown, you own this issue and the illegitimate Kavanaugh on SCOTUS.
1
The Supreme Court didn't destroy your military career, Donald Trump did. Just so you're clear.
2
I write this as a Veteran myself.
You want to serve and that is your choice. Personally, I think you are better off not to anymore. The heavy militarization of our nation is part of our trouble and undoing.
From a DoD perspective refusing you, though, makes no sense. The expensive training you got as a pilot is a complete waste by excluding you from service.
3
Unfortunately, the Trump/McConnell court has begun to rear its ugly head. Equal rights under the law may be a thing of the past. Ultimately, it is possible that we are entering another era of civil protest in order to combat the anachronistic impulses of this court. They are a throwback to a bigoted, white male dominated era.
1
Some are making the mistake of equating race, gender, and sexual behavior. Let's look to settled science (wise to do with climate change and most things). There are 2 genders, male and female. Quite distinct. There are several races, but the men of those races are similar except in some superficial ways. The same is true of the women. Behavior is something else. The physical differences between men and women are considerable. Not just anatomical design and reproductive roles but the stark fact that as a gender, men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women. That would seem pertinent when assigning military roles. Sports, quite physical, are not integrated. Men compete with men and women compete with women. The goal of the enlightened is “separate but equal”. The same prize money but separate competitions. Race and gender are quite different. We don’t expect to see “Colored” restrooms in 2019, but we see Male and Female restrooms every day and don’t complain. There are 2 genders, this is settled science. The military is not for social engineering, it is for the defense of the country
2
@Tom W. Why do we see separate male and female restrooms every day? What purpose do they serve? I am a small and non-aggressive male. Many women are far more suited to be in the military if they are foolish enough to make that choice.
@Tom W. So If someone wants to serve the country and is willing to fight to defend the country, what's your beef?
1
@Madwand - I spent 3 years in the army, one in Vietnam. I had almost flat-feet. I have worn arches since I was a teenager. I made the cut. Many with flat feet were exempted from the military. I am sure some of them wanted to defend the country. Some were too tall, some too short. Some had medical issues. Loving your country and wanting to serve your country doesn't guarantee acceptance in the military. As JFK said about the military, "Life is unfair". Why did the guy next to you get killed and not you? Life is unfair. I wanted to play on the New York Yankees but didn't have the skills and talent. Life is unfair.
2
Trump and his bigoted right wing don't want to listen to facts or actual experience of the people involved. They just want to discriminate and disenfranchise as many Americans as possible. He has consistently chosen the least qualified people to be his advisers and appointees. He would appoint his dog walker, if he were human enough to have a pet, to be the Surgeon General if he could. The march backwards continues with new willfully uninformed decisions every day.
2
As troubling as this is, I can't imagine how much worse these issues will become once Mr. and Mrs. Pence gain the White House. This country seems to be going crazy....
Thank you for your service.
1
National defense isn’t about individual sexual preference.
It seems to me that the US is being run by a malign minority, whose attitudes and beliefs have now been embedded in the Supreme Court. I find this sickening.
2
I hope, someday, you get to tell you're children that you then went on to help end Trump's political career.
2
The integrity of our armed forces and the protection of the mainland are the important issues here, not the interests of confused individuals who can't even figure out what to do with their sex organs.
4
@No You clearly did not read the article. All branches of the armed services have determined that there are no negatives to transgender people serving. Is that hard to understand?
1
It should be clear to everyone that there is no medical, psychological or intellectual reason to bar transgender people from serving in the military -- or any other profession. I would bet my last dollar that Trump would agree. I also would bet that he is trying to torpedo your career for one and only one reason: To feed the bloodlust of his rabid base of supporters, who expect Trump to perpetuate their hate in exchange for keeping him in power. They are both making a deal with the devil, and you are collateral damage.
4
it is great sadness that the daft dodger is eliminating real patriots. Especially when the poor government makes them most needed.
2
This is an injustice. I'm so sorry that this is happening and I too am very concerned about what this means for our transgender brothers and sisters for generations to come. We should not take this blatant unjustified discriminatory lightly. If the SC will allow such unjustified discrimination against a group of patriots that serve and protect our country they will allow far worse against others.
I am also reminded of a certain military intelligence officer that served in the shadows because she didn't want to lose her position to such unfair and discriminatory policy. She symbolized both the truth that the military can not rid itself of these people nomatter what its policies and that such policies also lend justification to treason, spying and betrayal.
Trump is a ignorant and despicable creature that neither knows or cares about what happens due to such policies but the conservatives on the SC are expected to know better and judge fairly to avoid such big mistakes. Apparently, they have failed in their duty.
5
This is what happens when the electoral college installs the loser into the oval office, Again !
Our supreme court, the one that "We The People" actually want has been stolen and con jobbed away by the right wing republicans.
Until the thievery is undone we do not live with a "Government of the people, By the People, For the people".
We live in Country that is now ruled by a right wing minority that uses every traitorous scheme to keep itself entrenched in the seats of power.
Federal workers should surround the white house and demand that the "illegitimate one" re-open the government and start paying the workers. This is not like one of his construction projects where he can stiff the workers,
or is it?
2
Im pretty sure when bullets are fizzing over your head, such things become incidental. I don't see the need to exclude trans people other than to spite them. They really do want to cling onto the old days.
2
Everything Trump does is negative. I never see anything built up, just torn down; destruction and pain are his thing. The military is the big loser here. It’s not like people are lining up to join; the Army is missing its own recruiting goals. And yet they have to reject highly qualified and trained Americans with the drive to serve. Well, next presidency we will get this straightened out, if there’s any righteousness. Too bad so much will be lost, by then.
2
Any American who "chooses" on their own to serve our country and risk life and limb to do so MUST be hailed as True American Patriots.
As long as these volunteers meet the rigors set forth by each branch of our armed forces, their sexual orientation simply cannot be a factor of disqualification.
The hand-picked Supreme Court Stooges as installed by Trump are an embarrassment to our country.
Before Trump, McConnell robbed Obama of his rightful power to select a replacement Supreme Court Judge.
Clearly, Trump is only "the latest" threat to our democracy and the GOP leadership have been working hard for years, creating a path for a wannabe dictator like Trump.
We need a National Outcry against this Supreme Court decision and force the correction at the voting booths.
2
How fortunate we are to have Americans like Brynn Tannehill willing to serve in our armed forces.
Among the worst lies of Trump and his flunkies in Congress are the PR attempts to portray themselves as supporting soldiers.
Are they running out of groups to persecute? Who will be next? Let's see, how about people with brown eyes?
Please know that real Americans support your willingness to serve, Mr. Tannehill, and appreciate it very much. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy is among the very most desirable candidates for service. It doesn't get any more stupid than to reject candidates with your intelligence and high skill. Good luck to you.
2
I’m sorry and ashamed for the way Thisbe country has treated you. It is fundamental in the authoritarian play book to create an enemy out of small groups to boost base support. This is nothing but a political ploy
First, they came for the trans people. E have seen this before
Thanks, Mitch ...
I'm truly embarrassed for this country and am so sorry.
1
Trump and company want to destroy the US one brick at a time. When is enough enough.
1
The US military always advances towards diversity for one reason. It recognizes merit in any individual who serves. If Commander Bone Spurs does not get that, the whole US military will suffer, not just transgender folks.
1
The Court just greenlit rank discrimination.
So much for the sanctity of contracts soldiers
sign.
obscene
1
Some people are created more equal than others apparently.
I was sickened to hear of the decision today. I cannot imagine how difficult this is for you. Trump has certainly made this a nastier, less gentler world.
I hope this decision gets turned around so that such discrimination can be squelched.
1
Silly Trump or should I say "Cadet Bone-Spurs". I am a moderate and for the most part I don't mind Trump (I don't like him and didn't vote for him, but he is somewhat tolerable for me). But the ONE thing about Trump that makes me very angry is his severe hypocrisy. Trump always goes on about being patriotic, yet not one member of his living family (himself included) has a ever fought in a war it even worn a military uniform. I am not saying you have to serve in the military to be patriotic, but I do think someone who really loves their nation would join their nation's armed forces in order to protect their country. If Trump really loved America as much as he loves to say, then why didn't he ever serve in the military??
Trump thinks a non-existent bone spur was reason to not serve, enough said.
Brynn,
I can only imagine how you must feel. I am sickened by this news today.
We have a very depraved and sadistic President. He enjoys displays of his power. He actually takes pleasure in upending people’s lives. He woke up one morning and decided that he wanted to do this and surprised everyone. He acts without thought or deliberation. He cares nothing for the people whose lives he destroys.
My deepest wish for you is that you find soul-satisfying work in your field and that you keep speaking out on behalf of yourself and others like you. I am so grateful that you WANT to serve our country. This very article is you being of service. Thank you for your words and your openness.
2
Would that we lived in a world where the color of your skin, your religion, or any other irrelevancy was routinely ignored. Then the only question that would matter would be Brynn's flying skills.
The draft-dodging coward continues to use the military as a political prop; a go to option in case of any rough patch.
Every one of Trump’s transgender ban announcements was made during a time when Trump was getting destroyed for one of his own foolish actions (Trump Tower meeting lies, Comey, etc.). As usual, his reasons are farcical. A $750,000,000,000 defense budget can’t handle the “tremendous” costs of a minuscule portion of its own troops? What, was it eating too much into the Viagara funding?
They are willing to serve. That anyone would willingly sign up for or remain in the military under the absurdist command of an ignorant degenerate such as Trump is either a testament to the patriotism of our troops or a demonstration of severely poor judgment (or both), but the fact remains... they are willing to serve. That’s more than Trump has EVER been able to say and should be the beginning and end of his particular comments on the matter. His need to cater to the worst elements within his political base is the true “burden” this country can no longer bear and it is his own dubious presence that imperils the nation.
SCOTUS allows irrational and arbitrary discrimination. Thank you President Trump. I guess they are no different then the electoral college.Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave.
1
The Supreme Court is trying to follow the law, namely, that the military can decide. This is Trump's policy and it is based on politics.
I respect your taking the time to express your views. I also respect your service. But I disagree with the position you are taking.
Just in general I don't like it when people discuss on the job (non military) their sexual orientation or interests.
The reason I don't like it, is because this is an area where emotions trump reason. It is so far as I can see, something that people spend much of their life learning to keep limited to their personal lives and to keep under control. At least the people that I admire.
I am uncomfortable in general with men who brag about the numbers of women they are involved with, or women who forsake their man because something better came along,
When emotions come into play, people don't judge each other fairly and that is where jealousy comes in and favoritism.
When ones sexuality dominates their viewpoint of the world that is something of concern.
The military is not a school to uplift its members, its a business to protect society that pays its workers in exchange.
Everyone has issues - but the question is, can we keep them to ourselves for the benefit of the collective unit. That is what the military needs.
Sounds like you have some very needed skills; that can be used in the private arena. Pilots i would imagine make good money. It costs a fortune to learn how to fly,
So you have some problems but you also have blessings.
It must be wonderful to take to the skies and soar and view the world.
You'll do fine - all the best.
1
@Ben Ross
Sadly, you like so many others, conflate gender identity with sexual orientation. In doing so, you are perpetuating exactly the nebulous allusions that Trump adherents and other transphobic agitators use to stop capable individuals from serving in the military. Nowhere is Tannehill's piece, is there a reference to her "sexuality." Further, her gender identity is not an "issue." It has been construed as a "problem" by people who appear to categorize human beings by natal genitalia - is there anything more sexualizing than that? Think again, sir.
Let's not forget that every decision in which Gorsuch casts a tie-breaking vote is illegitimate. He is, and always will be, an illegitimate justice and his opinions will always have zero legitimacy.
Additionally, three other justices- Alito, Roberts, and Kavanaugh- were all appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a senate in which the "majority" is actually the minority. That's 4 of 9 justices who should have been rightfully appointed by the Democratic popular vote winner- the person that the majority of the country selected to be president. For anyone counting, that means Democrats have- were this legitimate- an 8-to-1 majority on this court. 8 to 1. Think about that. That's what Americans actually voted for: An 8 to 1 liberal majority.
In short, there is a major legitimacy crisis looming for the courts. As they continue to make illegitimate decisions, against the clear will of the majority, any remaining integrity will continue to erode until the SCOTUS looks like something you'd see in Russia or Venezuela.
4
It is deeply baffling to me that our military is forced to turn away good patriotic, able bodied and mind Americans from joining it. This is single handedly one of the most shameful rulings in the history of the Supreme Court and belongs right next to Citizen United as a reminder of the erosion of our nations democratic values and dignity. To my trans brothers and sisters, the rest of the LGBT community stands with you. The fight for equality is not linear but our community will prevail. We have been a part of human history since the beginning on time and we will be here long after this wave of bigoted conservatism dies a painful death. They can take away our rights but they will never send us back in the closet. They can evict us, fire us and refuse to welcome us in their businesses, they can make us political pawns of their fear mongering ways, torture our youth in ‘conversion camps’, encourage their young to target us but they will never be able to change us or break us. So hang tight my friend, our journey for equality has just begun.
The military is mostly about dropping your identity completely and falling in line, and not causing disorder. Anything that does not fit that bill could potentially get people killed because they are paying attention to the thing or person that sticks out rather than literally being in uniform. I don't have any sympathy for someone who is trying to exert their special, chosen identity over the identity of being in uniform. There is much proof that women underperform in the military too, and make groups less efficient. I would have no problem banning them too, because the only thing that is important regarding military is readiness. Anything controversial that thwarts its readiness should be banned from the military. Get in line and shut up, or go do something else. The rest of us need to fit a mold too to stay in our jobs, I'm tired of hearing cry baby stories. It's not a civil rights story, it's a military readiness story. The people who claim to be fighting for civil rights are the ones causing the military to be less ready to protect the freedoms that these people claim to be fighting for.
2
Which is, of course, why the top brass in every branch testified that this issue did not affect military readiness.
2
@PJ ABC What nonsense, there is no proof that women underperform.
Thank you for this cogent analysis. Nothing of your passionate desire to serve others and your country will be wasted. It is worth noting that four of the five "conservative" male justices that rendered this decision are Roman Catholic and the fifth was raised Roman Catholic. This glaring mismatch of religious worldview with the United States demographic may have more to do with this decision than any political bias or originalist hermeneutic.
2
You can hold your head high knowing you served our country while the privileged President claimed bone spurs and none of the Supreme Court justices have served a single day in the military.
Stay strong and vote this President and the Republican party out of politics for good. Thank you for your service to our country and my heart is broken for you and your fellow soldiers.
2
As an American, I am ashamed that you have suffered this fate. It was dictated by a man who used his wealth and privilege to escape service and is now using your situation to secure political points with a base that is fearful and hate-filled toward the “other.”
That so many Republican politicians, and now conservative jurists, have enabled such insults and assaults on the values and legal constructs designed to ensure equal protection of all Americans is both tragic and deeply wrong.
Your excellent Op-Ed has exposed the absurdity of the notion that transgender military personnel are not fit to serve (just as African Americans, women, and gay Americans have fought before you). While your military service has been jeopardized by these cruel, ignorant and politically motivated unconstitutional acts, I would suggest that your advocacy is another form of service to your country for which you should be justly proud and for which history will record as being of the highest order of merit.
1
Everything they’re saying about transgenders they’ve said about gays, African descendants*, and women. There has to be some last minute wrangling of the issue in the courts. While not everyone can afford to be patient, this will get fixed.
*not all U.S. military members are American.
1
Trump's bone spurs could have been fixed so he could serve during Vietnam. He chose not to have that, no doubt, painful and 4-F inducing condition fixed. The writer here had a sex transition a her expense so she could serve in the military position she trained for. Who is the more honorable?
2
This move is a harbinger of things to come from this trump altered supreme court where white male christian bias will prevail over future adjudications. It is a death knell for women's abortion rights, no question, We can thank so-called moderate republican Susan Collins who lost all credibility as such when she voted for Kavanaugh.
1
Here are the 18 countries the author alludes to. (20 listed actually)
The ones that know patriotic people should, of course, serve their nation.
Here are the normal countries per Wikipedia:
"As of 30 October 2017, 20 countries allowed transgender military personnel to serve openly: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,[2] Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United States.[3] Cuba and Thailand reportedly allowed transgender service in a limited capacity.[3] In 1974, the Netherlands was the first country to allow transgender military personnel."
19 if we subtract the United States after the Court's ruling - at the urging of low-ball Trump and company.
Note Cuba and Thailand.
Think I'll head to my nearest Thai restaurant for a meal today.
And Cuban food later this week.
I'll enjoy it with new-found gusto.
Until we can place a judge of Judge Garland's integrity and lack of political (ie, being a member of the Federalists Society say) leaning, you will be treated as less than a first class citizen, why is gender such a 'thing' whether you are a woman or a man doesn't mean YOU can't serve. It's pathetic that we are still living in the last century. I am sorry, I applaud your love of your service and your abilities. Again, I am sorry we are here.
We are sorry.
I think most Americans believe this treatment of you is a grave injustice.
1
Ma'am, it is a privilege to serve in the same military you do. Don't give up.
1
Brynn Tannehill's article is beautifully written and the points made are eloquent. Many of the replies are full of insight as well. In short, I can't add an original thought.
The bottom line is that prejudice is rising in our nation. There really is no greater foe. Those who oppose that foe must rise up and speak with great force.
1
I agree the court decision has more to do with injunctions than anything else. I also agree Trump is motivated by political animus rather than rational thought. Assuming you wanted to ban transgender service members, the rational policy would only ban transgender recruitment, not previously trained personnel. We have at least $1 million in tax payer money invested in Brynn Tannehill sitting on the sideline. That training and experience is probably a sunk cost now.
That said, I'm more conflicted about the overall moral and legal question. I'm reminded of the phrase "Subject to the requirements of the service." If you join the military, your very existence is subject to the requirements of the service. The Commander and Chief has the authority to send you off to die. Your life is forfeit when you swear the oath. If not the President, who has the authority to ultimately decide the requirements of the service?
This President is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. However, Trump will not always be President. The perfect victory here would mostly likely constrain a future President seeking to expand service rights for other groups. This is bad news for Tannehill or anyone else getting buffeted around by political misfortune but, hey, that's the military. You don't get to choose. I'm not sure this is necessarily a battle we want to win.
1
I served 30 years as an aviator with all kinds of people. A few were gay, a good smattering of lesbians, lots of straights. The straights had some of the weirdest sexual lives you can possibly imagine, told to me over endless hours of night patrols, with graphic embellishments and once or twice, photographs.
Some were really good pilots, some were fair, some were so bad they were quietly removed from flying duties. None of their stick and rudder skills had anything to do with their sexuality.
I find making a distinction based upon something as arbitrary as this reveals more about the people making the decision than the subjects of their ire. It appears POTUS and five members of SCOTUS need a psychiatrists' couch. And in the world I lived in, it just means that I lose another pilot.
214
@Mjxs I never served but in my work life I've encountered plenty of people who are as diverse as what you describe when you were an aviator. I considered myself lucky to be working with some of these people, particularly the ones who were smart, understood how to mentor and teach others, and who didn't care about our gender, sexual preference, or our immigration status, etc.
I've worked with the best and the worst. Like you I noticed that religion, skin color, sexual preferences, gender, and country of origin were not the most important items about a person. What mattered was competence, the ability to work with others, acting like an adult instead of a child, being willing to help out.
It's a dismal feeling to realize that our country is not being run by adults. If it was these spats wouldn't be continuing and we'd be having mature discussions about where to place people like Brynn Tannehill
instead of trying to exclude them.
18
Thank you so much, not only for your previous service and myriad attempts to serve again, but for putting the absurdity of stopping you from future service in such stark relief. It may not seem like you have done anything important, but you have. Sharing stories of effort and determination in the face of animus helps people to see those behind the animus for what they really are. There will always be those that disagree with you and me, but those people are a minority and your efforts helps define them better and clear form their ranks some who will realize they want a truly better America and world.
1
Fasten your seatbelt because there is more bad news yet to come from Robert's Supreme Court.
We all know what to expect to come out of the Trump White House. That is already baked in.
And to some extent, we all knew that with Kannaugh, a right-leaning 5-4 vote was going to more and more common. But ultimately, this level of discrimination will come to haunt our Chief Justice and define his legacy and that of his court.
In an era in which our leaders like McConnell and Trump are quick to abdicate their sworn oath to the Constitution, we now can add to this list Chief Justice Roberts.
Oh, and for those that question the value of Ms. Tannehill's service, in particular those who without any understanding of what the military might have to spend on her with regards to her gender change, what do you think it cost taxpayers to educate and train an Annapolis Naval Aviator?
The United States has already invested heavily in Ms. Tannehill and if you are so terribly concerned about possible treatment costs, they will not come even close to the moneys spent training an Blackhawk helicopter pilot. So if your point is about money, stop waisting our time.
7
This is yet another result of a lack of separation of Church and State. Trump's ban has nothing to do with military readiness--the studies have been done and the impact of transgender troops has been shown to be negligible. Trump's ban is all about playing to his evangelical base. The Court's decision not to stay the ban as the case proceeds is a blatant case of the SCOTUS enforcing what amounts to religious persecution. Republicans have opened the door to the Church, seating six Catholics on the Court, skewing justice for the citizens of this country, so that deserving soldiers like Ms. Tannehill are treated as a moral failure, unfit for service, for what is a personal choice based on a psychological, emotional, mental, and spiritual condition.
4
Never has a picture accompanying an article been more
appropriate. A blurred image of the “Commander-in-Chief” standing before a very clear and distinct group of Naval
Officers.
Blurring the issue is what Trump hopes to accomplish. It isn’t the Supreme Court that has ended Ms. Tannehill’s military career, but it is Trump.
9
@Peter P. Bernard Also, if you zoom in on the crowd behind POTUS it is really hard to see any non-white and female faces in the dress uniform.
THAT says a whole lt.
Sorry, but your article is a flat-out lie. A very short reading of any actual news article should this would show that the ban on transgender military members only applies to NEW recruits, and existing members of the military who are transgender are allowed to stay.
This is a much more generous policy than the one that applies to other military members with conditions that requires them to take daily medications, as transgender people that wish to transition take hormones. Many conditions that wouldn't disqualify a person from any civilian job would have them discharged from the military.
7
@Taylor, the author is not currently in the military. You missed that part. Also, the military already cleared her for any medical/medication issue.
Maybe if you read the article before ‘commenting’ you would realize the truth of the article!
The soldier wants to rejoin the military! The new rule would apply!
I have no right to comment on the author's experience of this. Having said that, I hope that this is more about the legality of the lower court's decision than the right of transgender people to serve in our military.
2
I remain totally in the dark about how this issue came to be. I was a draftee in the early 1950s -- when those serving in the army mostly were privates and corporals serving only because it was required for two years by law. Few were happy about it. but there was felt to be no choice other than joining the navy or air force for a longer period.
Surely amongst us there must have been those who were not conventional heterosexuals. I had no idea who they might be and really did not care. We all just served our time and then rejoiced when it had been completed. There was a constant rotation of personnel.
As long as those with homosexual tendencies did not bother others, or flout their difference (which I never saw happen) all we cared about was serving our time and counting the months until we could get out and return to our civilian lives.
Career soldiers (most of our sergeants and officers above Lt. grade) were respected for who they were and a social group entirely unto themselves. We did not mingle off duty.
After the basic training convict-level ordeal here in the US, we were accepted into a mutually respectful military society in Germany, where everyone did his job and pretty much minded his own business.
There were a few women army people, seperately housed, who also were treated with respect -- including one captain under whom I once served. We got along just fine.
2
@Penseur
My Army experience was exactly the same. I was stationed in El Paso at the NATO Air Defense Training Center with a SAC Base attached and there were EM and officers from all over Europe stationed there.
Both El Paso and Juarez had very active gay communities and clubs. Gay officers, NCO's and EM's were known by everybody but nobody cared.
Vietnam was just stirring and only "advisors" were being stationed there. Because there was no immediate war, everybody in the gay community, regardless of rank, enjoyed each other's company.
The gay soldiers had a much greater diversified life after duty hours than we did; plus, their clubs had better music.
3
The Trump administration’s policy is certainly baffling. Makes no sense at all - unless you consider who the VP is and what his input to the policy might have been.
8
This certainly makes a good argument for case by case reviews of transgender situations, as might be done for any medical condition. Clearing someone medically for the role they are entering makes a great deal more sense than a blanket ban.
4
Thank you. I hope many read your thoughtful and eye opening report and that it opens the hearts and minds of people blanketed by prejudice.
8
@Linda Martín
Unfortunately those people to whom you refer will not change. They will remain prejudiced.
It makes them feel "superior."
People don't realize that the military is not a democracy. It's a repressive totalitarian dictatorship. Recruits, inductees, are told what to wear, when and where to sleep, what to say and what not to say, and can be punished for their unapproved speech. Their food is regulated and their activities are monitored and restricted. Their mission is to kill and if not in a combat role, to support the killing mission. If a person's activities interfere with troop moral, it ability to function, whatever, the military leadership can and does remove those people or restrict how they serve. This editorial probably would result in disciplinary action by the military if the writer was still enlisted. But he/she is a civilian now and can enjoy the freedoms not allowed to the military.
5
No - the Supreme Court did not end your military service - President Trump and Republicans ended your military service. As they say - elections have consequences, if people want different outcomes they need to vote differently. All the Supreme Court said is that under current laws the President has the right to impose this ban - but again if you want different laws and policies then people need to vote differently
13
First, thank you for your service, from the bottom of my heart. It takes a lot to serve, especially in the face of institutional discrimination. I also deeply apologize for the pointless cruelty our country imposes on you.
I find nothing, absolutely nothing, coming from the Trump administration grounded in facts, study, or any kind of due consideration. This is an administration of emotion, raw visceral and unconsidered first impression. It is not just Trump. This represents who we are as a people. My hope is that this is an aberration that will pass. I did not grow up believing that this country could or should behave like this toward its citizens. Time is disabusing me of my youthful misunderstanding.
I would like to ask Trump supporters, who are the base of his power to do anti-American things, how they think the law can fracture like this, leaving some banished to a desert of exclusion, and not ultimately fail each of them at some point? Do you feel somehow entitled to different and better treatment under the law? I believe that we all rise, or fall, together.
While SCOTUS can claim to defer to the Commander in Chief in military matters - a historical retreat, this is not right. Without evidence indicating adverse impacts on military readiness, Trump's transgender policy is identical to those of earlier times excluding people of color. Utter nonsense, completely wrong.
480
@Some Dude Trump's terrible initiative to exclude these deeply patriotic paragons of public service breaks my heart. But I must take issue with your allegation that Trump's decision is not grounded in facts or consideration but based on emotion. Rather, his is a profoundly cold and calculated move to ensure evangelicals' support for his narcissistic morally bankrupt agenda, cynically based on electoral calculus.
23
@Some Dude Imagine the reaction if Trump summarily barred African Americans from military service. If the court can defer to the whims and biases of the commander-in-chief, solely due to that status, on this ban, why not let him go beyond reversing Harry Truman's integration of the armed forces and command an all-white service?
After all, if there's no evidence or expert opinion to support this exclusion, who needs it for any other exclusion?
5
One hopes that the current policy will ultimately prevail in the courts, but given today's decision, we shouldn't expect it. President Truman integrated the armed forces, and then President Obama lifted the ban on openly gay service members. Women can now also serve in combat positions.
Before such policies were made, the justification was that "colored" or gay service members, or women in combat, would affect military cohesion and moral: basically, they would make other service members uncomfortable. Today's ruling defends EXACTLY the same "reasoning." It is blatant discrimination, dressed in legal finery.
Starting with Citizens United, this Court has made some of the most regressive rulings in the Court's history. Next up: Roe v. Wade.
337
@jrinsc
Rather, I meant the previous policy before President Trump's ban.
18
@jrinsc - You are making the mistake of equating race, gender, and sexual behavior. Let's look to settled science (wise to do with climate change and most things). There are 2 genders, male and female. Quite distinct. There are several races, but the men of those races are similar except in some superficial ways. The same is true of the women. Behavior is something else. The physical differences between men and women are considerable. Not just anatomical design and reproductive roles but the stark fact that as a gender, men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women. That would seem pertinent when assigning military roles. Sports, quite physical, are not integrated. Men compete with men and women compete with women. The goal of the enlightened is “separate but equal”. The same prize money but separate competitions. Race and gender are quite different. We don’t expect to see “Colored” restrooms in 2019, but we see Male and Female restrooms every day and don’t complain. There are 2 genders, this is settled science. The military is not for social engineering, it is for the defense of the country
3
@Tom W. Men might be on average stronger and more aggressive than women but there are millions of individual women that would do just fine in the military and many men that wouldn't stand a chance (myself included in that group).
12
This article, like most (almost all) articles/opinions I have read about legal matters regarding transgender people, does not explain what medical or pharmaceutical care is required to maintain a person in his/her new gender. As I understand (perhaps erroneously?), medical ‘transition” does not make a a man permanently a woman or vice versa. To retain the new gender, the transexual person must (I think) continue with hormonal treatment forever and, in the case of male-to-female, must have on-going treatments to maintain the new “vaginal” opening.
I myself do not understand the implications of such life-long treatments, but I think it is relevant to question and explore how such treatments might impact on an individuals ability to function in various professional capacities — if only to give assurances that the lifelong medications pose no negative impacts or complications. It is also relevant to ask how such interventions compare with those of people with medical conditions that require constant monitoring and/or pharmaceutical support. In the case of the military, how are — for example - people with diabetes, asthma, atrial fibrilation and other conditions that require lifelong medication — evaluated for fitness to serve? The fitness of transexuals to serve in the military should be evaluated in a similar way to that of other people who require lifelong medical/pharmaceutical support to ensure that such treatments are compatible with service and do not cause risks.
62
@LD Excellent points. I know a young man who appears to be in outstanding physical condition, but who occasionally needs an inhaler for an asthmatic condition. He wanted to serve, but could not due to this medical reason. He accepted the finding and moved on. And while he would have made an excellent service member in some capacity, he understood that the military must be able to deploy people who don't require extra measures to get through their daily lives.
27
@JM
In fact the military was going to provide the sex change surgery at taxpayer expense after a preliminary trial of simply changing clothing and name etc. The medications and possible side effects and certain complication rates would have to be dealt with as service connected disabilities. A similar example is stomach bypass surgery for eating disorders. Often servicemen and women get this surgery done surreptitiously and then when there are complications they end up being treated and disabled in the military system. While this aviator certainly can do her job the problem with the military is that it would have to establish rules and benefits allocation that would apply to all soldiers, not just an Annapolis trained aviator. How would one deal with a soldier that said he could not sit in an aircraft due to pain in the vaginal area from scar from the surgery? Would this be a service connected disability retirement the taxpayer should cover?
17
@LD It is not the transformation of male to female or female to male which is the question here. If one accepts himself as who he is in mind and body, no need to go through this ordeal. Read PSLAMS 139:13-16 especially 16 and this will answer all as to a transgender.
4
I think the fact that Trump worked very hard to stay out of the military and transgender, gay and lesbian Americans have to work hard to get into, and stay in the armed forces speaks volumes.
I would say that he should be ashamed of himself but what we have learned is that he has no shame, no compassion and no sense of decency beyond himself.
415
@steve
None of that gets him a pass; he *should* be ashamed. That won't happen, as you point out. He will also never understand why he causes many Americans to be ashamed of their president.
6
In a few years when it will be so common to serve in the military as a transgender, everybody will remember Trump and his aides in their pre-modern actions against such changes. I say that without, personally, really understanding why anybody should medically a his or her body in order to fit to a gender type. But it doesn't matter, because if you feel so and when it is so important to you, then I will support you as a fellow citizen.
I believe that this is what should give you hope, in the same way that King and others knew decades ago that blacks will have one day more rights or that they will be treated as normal as one can be as a citizen. Despite the pessimists and naysayers, rumour has it that Obama is black, and that a black was just unthinkable 50 or 80 years ago, yet people fought back then already for black rights.
Of course this all is a shame. Of course this injustice will be revoked in a few years. Until then: Stay vocal, stay strong, remember the future, and good luck to you.
46
@Wirfegen Of course, the reason we'll see it is that they're joining to soak the taxpayers for the surgery and a year of pay afterwards while they're not deployable.
For the record, the military is part of the executive branch, and their conclusions are, much like their budget, based primarily on what the commander in chief decides they will be. The military is a political tool.
The only thing that should matter in serving in the American military is a desire to serve and the ability and competence to do so with honor.
None of the Justices have ever worn the military uniform of any American armed force.
No member of the Trump family has ever worn the military uniform of any American armed force.
Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to wear the military uniform of any American armed force. While the rest of us pretend to be brave honorable and patriotic by rising to sing the national anthem and salute the flag at sporting events.
324
Gorsuch is dancing with the one who brought him. So much for truth and integrity.
4
@Blackmamba
I'm sorry, but members of the armed forces do not have a monopoly on patriotism, bravery, or honor.
Police officers and fire fighters are brave. Teachers, nurses, and doctors do honorable and thankless work.
Any of us can be patriotic without serving in the military or participating in symbolic gestures.
Please do not denigrate those of us who chose not to serve in the military by suggesting that we are not honorable, brave, or patriotic.
13
Thank you for your spot on observation
4
Thank you for speaking up, Brynn, and for all the time and effort you have put into advancing this cause, on top of your years of service to this country. Even if this administration does not respect you, please know that most of your fellow citizens do.
9
So this makes the conservative members of SCOTUS failures who do not meed the Judicial Code of Conduct which requires all justices to be fair, impartial, reasoned, and without discrimination. It further states a Justice must never even appear to be anything but fair, impartial, reasoned, and without discrimination. Kavanaugh failed at the Code and should never have been confirmed. The conservatives represent the effect of Citizens United, a euphemistic title that gives big money a free pass, the long time effects of Koch controlled Congress, and the planned weakening of the three branches for checks and balances. Trump never served, never did community outreach or service, but he has the support of the 1% non-christian evangelicals whose radical political agenda is to rule America with their hateful, anti-Democracy beliefs. Transgender people were put on the same list of all who these EV hate which means anyone who isn't white, wealthy, with hard right radical political views like themselves.
3
Even if it had an effect, I don't think the "impact on morale, readiness or unit cohesion" should be taken into account. The military must adapt to the circumstances and not the other way arround. If you have a problem with working transgender people, you are the problem, not the transgender people. You can't work 100% with them, fine, the door is there. Morale, readiness and unit cohesion used to be the arguments against colored people serving side by side with white folks. It is actually insulting to claim that our wonderful professionnal military personnel would be incapable of being 100% efficient because of transgender people. Military staff is trainded to ignore cold, rain, hunger, fatigue, heat, etc, but they wouldn't withstand transgenders. Give me a break. And don't project your own weaknesses on our military.
5
@Den Barn. Excactly. If anything we should institute a transphobe ban, since they’re the ones showing themselves to be unable to behave professionally.
2
You flew Blackhawks? You mean the front line helicopters that the US Military uses in air assault, aircavalry, and medical evacuation?
Captain, you can fly in and rescue me (or my brother, son, father, mother, sister, daughter, fellow American, etc) any time.
I salute you for your service in the military and in helping the military continue to find and train the best *people*.
9
Thank you for your service, Brynn.
It’s small consolation now, but rest assured that eventually brave people like you will be serving again.
Progress is slow and halting, but precedes.
2
I stand with you, Brynn. This country does not deserve the benefit of your loyalty and great gifts to it if it will not recognize that you are a US citizen and human being and your rights as such, and appreciate and applaud and be grateful for your love of country. Am I wrong or is this a 14th amendment issue? Anyway, I think you are a true heroine, a dedicated patriot and wish you all the best. If this case is decided against you, I think you should simply stop offering your talents and dedication to this country (while, of course, fighting for your and other people-in-your-situation's rights, as I plan to as well). Godspeed.
2
I think those of us in the LGBT community need to clean up our positions. First, lets be clear. A person who has transitioned
No single person is above unit cohesiveness. Soldiers have adapted to the military for hundreds of years, not vice versa. That is why we say ...thank you for your sacrifice. When the day comes when the military must accomodate every whim and fancy of its rank and file, the military will cease to exist. This isn't an affirmative action experiment. Sorry.
5
@Steve
Using that argument, if someone were to say that for the stability, security and safety of the United States slavery must exist, would that make it right? Acceptable? Accommodating the whims and fancy of black people? Affirmative action experiment?
If unit cohesiveness is seriously the argument against employment of LGBTs in the military, it seriously begs the question as to how bigoted and narrow-minded the decision makers in the military are. They would prefer not to have the best talents and abilities of people like Brynn, rather than standing up for what is fair and right AND protected by the constitution.
You are the canary in the coal mine. The Court is bound to seek out more unnecessary victims. But, I am really sorry to see you suffer. It's a really backwards and malign view the Supreme Court has adopted. Hopefully, this is just the last hurrah of a fading conservative generation. Sadly, we may be stuck with this for decades.
3
The Plutocracy/Oligarchy will rule this Nation for ages if the current GOP remains powerful.
A MINORITY Party buoyed by regressive, reactionary, racist, fascist, and non-secular evangelical forces.
It cleverly but despicably wins elections and owns narratives. So did the analogous European forces circa 1930.
Their technical tactics include redistricting, voter suppression, capturing/controlling propaganda apparatus, devaluing the truth of matters, etc..
Their political tactics include taking advantage of our more primal instincts: ego, fear, bigotry, tribalism, authoritarianism, etc..
Via propaganda they give tolerance, understanding, compassion, fair ethics, and human kinship a bad name.
Cleverly they fire-up their base TO VOTE while sowing apathy/cynicism by lies, distortions, sophistry in non-GOP voters so they do NOT VOTE.
Their ruling tactics include NOT being the LOYAL opposition ever.
But I ask this - what does the GOP oriented Conservatives really fear from a "liberal" SCOTUS?
The fact that a so called "liberal" court will take individual freedoms seriously?
Or that it defends social minorities from the prejudices of the majority?
Or that it defends a person's right to modern autonomy over body/expression?
Or that it does not let personal theology set the rules without honest secular reasons behind the rule?
Perhaps BUT MOSTLY that it'll brake their march toward fascist Plutocracy and protect the weaker from the more powerful!
Think about this PEOPLE!
1
I am an ignorant man at the dawn of the homo sapiens hundreds of thousands of years ago. I had to provide for the woman I had children with and considered myself superior to her who accepted my higher status.
For me and the men in my tribe this was the normal state of life. Any abnormality in relationships was condemned as being against the laws of nature.
Fast forward to the 20th century. Reality has proven that all variations of relationships must have existed throughout the ages and that there is no crime greater than to continue to cause suffering for minorities whose sextual orientations are different from those still in the realm of ignorance.
2
Hundreds of thousands of years ago, there were no cars, internet, electricity, etc. Times change.
@Abolghassem Abraham Sadegh
One comment, sexual orientation is not gender identity, transgender people have a variety of sexual orientations like any person does. The one thing they have in common is they shouldn't matter, but due, thanks to those who use religious belief to justify their hatred of people who are different than themselves.
1
America doesn't seem able to shake bigotry. Trump has brought it back, out of the whispering back rooms in the darkest corners of our collective conscience. This is not greatness. It's a return to governance by our worst impulses.
3
Maybe our military has gone soft. Wars are different than in the past. I have trouble imagining that a soldier in Vietnam even had time to worry about what gender they were. They were just trying not to have their faces blown off. 21st century problems!
3
SCOTUS ended your career but no one is above the law. This principle is the very underpinnings of our democracy, indeed the bedrock of our freedom purchased with the blood of those who have gone before. The Justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the imagined rights of so called "transgenders." Military effectiveness and cohesiveness can never be disturbed. The security of the nation supersedes individual "rights." The military clearly is not the place for you.
1
Trump enjoys inflicting pain. Apparently so does the court. I'm deeply sympathetic, Brynn.
3
Anybody brave enough to volunteer to fight for our country should be allowed the chance to do so.
5
Ironic isn't it? Donald Trump picks individuals (Supreme Court Justices) who will refuse those who want to serve in our military, but we have to stomach Trump, who falsely got out of serving the US military, as our country’s head of all militaries.
Every time I see Donald Trump salute (as recently, during an event bringing a fallen American back to this country in a casket)
I become nauseated. Commander in Chief? You’ve got to be kidding!
3
The mission of our military is to kill the enemy and destroy their equipment. It is not to make everybody happy including you. If you truly wish to serve your country there are many ways in which to do that outside of mi;Italy service.
3
The military doesn't let a lot of people serve. You serve at the convenience of the military.
They don't take a lot of people. For a myriad of reasons. Too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, doesn't sleep well at night, can't march, can't walk fast enough, needs medicine, poor vision...
3
I cannot understand the Supreme Court's thinking on this. It was a non-issue, ginned up by the President to satisfy...who? His base? Aren't they big supporters of the military whose leaders have consistently claimed this was not an issue? If the Supreme Court becomes an implementation arm of this sick President's own biases and insecurities then we are truly, deeply, in serious trouble.
3
America started out with such an idealistic hiss and a roar:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
but once people got down to the seedy practice of politics somehow America ended up with Jim Crow, gay bashing regulations and a politically biased Supreme Court.
So how long exactly does "a long train of abuses and usurpations" have to be before the people exercise their right and their duty "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" or at least start to protest the abuses of fellow citizens ( such as transgender service people or unpaid government workers ) by an unhinged and incoherent piece of trash like Trump ?
6
I have a real hard time understanding transgender , yet I could care less if someone wants to where a dress or a suit. What I do know is that I want highly qualified , brillant people protecting this country and if that person(s) is transgender it is ok with me.
4
I am sorry for the loss of your career Ms. Tannehill but feel you should place the blame where it is properly deserved and that is with "educated" progressives.
They are the ones who saw "no difference" between the Reality Show Con Artist and someone President Obama said was the most qualified person to run for the office.
Many "held their nose" as if that is a good way to get "independents" to support our cause.
Others "sat it out" or registered a "protest vote" for another candidate, not thinking that US Elections are a binary choice.
The election in 2016 was literally for a Supreme Court seat and if the grifter in chief was elected, it was obvious what he was going to do.
Everyone who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton - or didn't vote at all - is responsible to you and for the destruction his election has caused.
Let's hope that all Democrats and "educated" progressives realize the answer to who is the best candidate in every election is a simple one - whoever has the D by their name.
5
This could never have happened if John McCain had won & straightened out the republicans in 2000. Annapolis has hallowed ground.
Cheap pointless cruelty by conservative supreme court justices who for all intents and purposes are a religious cult intent on turning over the separation of church and state. The danger is that they will undo the country. I do not see many citizens and states agreeing to self destruct if this continues.
Thank you to taking a personal and ethical stand Brynn. I am sure many NGOs would welcome you in global situations where your expertise is needed. Not the same I know.
4
Come on, what did you expect from the GOP and The Trump Supreme Court. This is just the start....
I'm sorry, Ms. Tannehill. This administration is pointlessly regressing the country back to 1960. I want it to stop!
1
Anyone who sought deferrals five separate times to blatantly avoid military service is not qualified to be commander in chief. Trump doesn't know the first thing about military service or sacrifice.
3
@John Townsend
or kindness, or charity, or concern for others. All he learned about from his father is the pursuit of money. He is a sad, sad soul.
1
“The Supreme Court Just Ended My Military Career.” Not quite! A complacent and complicit divided, diverse American population enabled this to occur. As it does, daily, fostering a toxic, WE-THEY culture which violates, by harmful words and deeds, created, selected and target “the other(s)!These life-long-serving-judges, humanely flawed as all of us are, judge and decide our “rights” and “wrongs.”The dimensions of our identities. The equitable-inequitable sharing of the limited human and non-human resources so critical for achieving and sustaining types, levels and qualities of individual and systemic wellbeing. Each of US has contributed, and continues to do so, to their being able to determine: For Whom is it Permitted to…? For whom is it Forbidden to…? For Whom is it an Obligation to…? For Whom is it a Choice to…? For Whom is it a Need to…? For Whom is it an Opportunity to…? With impunity! And on the eighth Day…
1
Look on the up side; at least you won't need to die in yet another of our pointless, endless wars or in some new vanity war. I was stationed at Fitzsimons Army Medical Center in 1968 where I witnessed once whole young men roll by with horrendous wounds; no legs, no arms, no hands, no eyes, no future, or at least not the one their mother’s had envisioned for them when she first held them at her breast. Those men might heal, but they will never recover what they lost. Do you think there is some glorious value in being in the military? Read some Wilfred Owens poetry he wrote during WWI and tell me again ‘What joy, for fatherland to die!’ Be happy you are not permitted by our fool of a president to be a career soldier. Consider yourself lucky. Find something better to do with your life.
6
Transgender service members are some of the bravest and most admirable people in the nation. That they have fought so hard to serve our country despite the hate and vitriol that they have had lobbed at them by the right is a testament to their courage and determination. Unfortunately for them, and for America, the members of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court are little more than skinheads in black robes driven only by hate and greed. Justice is officially dead in these disunited states and the myth of a non partisan court has been shattered forever. Trump’s court has lined up to do his bidding. It’s a sad day.
3
Whenever D.C. Swamp elites play with the militaryas a social justice platform, innocent pleople are going to be sqeezed out.
I really blame the no-rules elites of the D.C. swamp culture for this. They open the doors to social-justice experimentation and when traditional thinking comes back, they suffer the consequences.
In my layman's opinion, you had a mental conditon but were led or mistreated into tansitioning, compounding the loss of a needed pilot with skills.
This sort of thing isn't over yet and it's a shame when it happens.
The Supreme Court has now become an extension of the Republican Party.....
We're lucky to have a volunteer military and not need a draft. I wouldn't discourage anyone from enlisting. It's a bad idea to start grilling potential recruits about their sexual thoughts.
The nation is judged on how it takes care of its minorities. By that measure, we have just failed.
3
Just plain shame on us for telling a single person that they cannot serve the country. Today is a gender-preference test, tomorrow a 'religion' test?
1
I am so sorry. This is a devastating blow and, unfortunately, probably not the last one that will land on the LGBT community under this administration. But they underestimate us. Take a deep breath and get ready for the next round of battles. Until then, we've got your 6.
This just one more example of the hatred and fear that is permeating the country. I am ashamed that so many Americans are so intolerant of others. I am ashamed that we have a president who avoided service, but seeks to stop others who are qualified from serving. To what purpose? One can only assume to inflame his base supporters.
3
This is outrageous.
Thank you for your service.
I cannot believe that SCOTUS voted for discrimination, hatred and fear.
@Sophia
I find it easy to believe that those five stuffed shirts voted that way.
1
Just where in the Constitution does it say it’s ok to deny transgender people their rights? Where in the Bible?
3
Shameful irony that is/was a cowardly lying draft dodger is responsible for stopping others who want to serve from serving.
Also ironic is that the military whose ultimate job it is to go to war but has often been at the forefront of the fight for equality - ie the desegregation of the Army under Truman and equal pay for woman for the same job - has no real problem with the transgender service members, while the Supreme Court whose job it is to ultimately uphold the rights of all citizens is willing to deny them those rights on no particular basis under then bigotry of the majority of it its members.
5
Can a transgender individual be nominated to the Supreme Court? If so, would Mitch McConnell, or another Senate Majority Leader refuse him/her a hearing if he had the chance?
1
What ever happened to “live and let live”?
This is a very slippery slope we’re headed down. Trump and his cronies won’t stop their war of discrimination with this lone victory. Next they’ll find justification to ban gays, then Hispanics, then blacks, then Muslims, and others, from serving their country in the military. If they put the same amount of effort into stopping gun violence, they could actually make America safe again.
2
This is the result of the Supreme Court judges appointed and approved by the people representing minority of the population of this great country. One reason to have no confidence in the Supreme Court!
1
Neither the President nor members of his family have volunteered for the military. Their service is to greed and power. Need we say more?
The willingness to put one’s life on the line for one’s country is the ultimate virtue and commands respect, not discrimination.
1
"The Supreme Court Just Ended My Military Career"
Yes, the Supreme Court did, but it was supporting Trump's decision to abrogate your rights. The major blame should be on Trump for making the awful decision and for stacking the court with right-wing idealogues. Remember, too, Trump made a firm promise to support the LGBT community, so it makes his role all the more noxious.
2
From a purely practical stand point, anyone willing to risk their life for their country should be allowed to serve, barring mental illness or major health issues.
Mr. Tannehill: Let us know which SCOTUS members served their country in uniform. We know POTUS and his kids didn't serve. Ditto with Romney and Cheney.
1
"Cruel pointlessness" says so very much about so many of this administration's policies. And yet there are many who believe that for the Republican base, the cruelty is the point.
3
This presidency won’t last forever and neither will its policies. There is still room for one to make the world a better place. May you prevail!
1
Ms Tannhill...thanks for your years of service. Very sorry that our government have decided that something, of no consequence, completely unrelated to your ability to serve America and it's people, have left you sidelined. What will be next? Who won't be able to serve in the USA military? Women? Men who are bald? Men who have brown eyes? Republican political beliefs? Democrat beliefs? The color of ones skin? Any requirement to serve should be based on the ability and capability of that person. End of story. Another step backwards for America. Let's hope in the future we can take two forward.
1
If a person is sufficiently mentally unstable that they fail to recognise their own gender and instead insist they're the other how can they be trusted and relied on to serve in the military? What next a right for anorexic or depressives to serve? The fact SCOTUS even has to consider this issue shows just how sadly confused our society has become.
5
This is The sad state of America. We should be protecting ourselves from people like Donald Trump and archaic Supreme Court justices who want to return us to the Stone Age. But this is what 63 million Americans want.
1
The US military is a disaster for humanity. It is poorly led, incompetent, and spreads chaos wherever it goes. It is not a force for good in the world and it does not serve the interests of the taxpayers who fund it. I question the wisdom of anyone wishing to be a part of it. So if they want to exclude some group from joining, I say "Hooray!" Then I would encourage those excluded to search their conscience and reconsider their stated desire to "serve" the super-rich at our expense.
Face it! The Trump Administration makes decisions on “gut feelings,” not science. No one in this administration wants to do any research to determine the right course of action. Thus, taxes are cut based on the mythic dogma of economic growth. Immigrants are demonized based on false perceptions. Muslims are denigrated based on religious beliefs. Now, transgenders will be denied rights based on prejudice.
The ban is wrong and represents what is so awful about this current administration: its continued bigotry against anyone who doesn't fit into the narrow view of what an American is. Ms. Tannehill served before she transitioned, and except for her gender change, nothing else has changed. Why can't she still be a pilot or hold some type of job in the Navy supporting the country she wants to serve? Her gender change shouldn't matter. She is an American wanting to serve her country. Let her.
I cannot in good faith continue to support a government who’s policies are antithetical to basic human decency. Until a new administration is installed, I hereby swear off any further payments to the IRS. My money will not go to support such inhumane, spiteful, and prejudiced policies. Come at me.
I'd be surprised if Roberts lets this go down the way it is... he's a political animal and he's not going to have his name be associated with this. my guess is there's going to be a compromise of sorts. not that changes the authors perspective or right to feel disgruntled.
1
I think it might be difficult to find a military person serving in a war zone who would check the birth sex of a fellow soldier before wanting said soldier (designated by the military to be fit to serve) to have their back.
1
@maggie That's a very naive view. It's more about the very high cost of medical care for a transgender person, and the time spent treating these issues, which takes away from the time that military members are expected to be actually serving in the military. There are a wide variety of medical conditions that disqualify someone from serving in the military.
3
At the end of last year, Justice Roberts went out of his way to say that the Supreme Court should not and was not a political institution under his leadership. The court tries to make judgements according to the law and the Constitution.
(Pregnant Pause)
The Chief Justice and his conservative majority seem to be living in the land of make believe, where he thinks the law, the Constitution and American life are all disconnected.
Alternative life styles, gun deaths and voter suppression all exist, in part, due to the court's past rulings.
In reality, we only have ourselves to blame in that we have allowed a slow motion coup of the rich and influential to stack the deck on their control of American economic and social life.
We have let a fool (Drumpf) and manipulator (McConnell) run our government which it will not recover for generations.
As concerned citizens, we have vote and continue to vote to have any future influence.
5
Our military serve to ensure our freedoms and our safety. These freedoms include the right to choose one's lifestyle. But how our military actually operate to protect us must be based on an optimum modus operandi, not to cater to personal lifestyles which require unnecessary additional accommodations.
Furthermore it puzzles me why those asking for respect, fail to respect those with different views.
5
The supreme court is no longer so supreme when it comes to combating prejudice in the United States. But we must remember that two of the justices were chosen by the most prejudiced president this country has ever seen.
6
Oh no! This court is YOUR SUPREME court. If you have an American passport, you own this mess. You elected that president knowing full well what was going to happen. This had all been predicted exactly as it is happening now.
And wait: He may yet be able to appoint another one or two justices. Elections do have consequences!
@Beyond Repair
Speaking of a mess... Under Trump maybe the US taxpayer will finally be freed from supporting our European "allies" e.g. dependents. For over a century it has been a one way flow of lives and money from the US to Europe to continually clean up their messes.
The Supreme Court is political. Its decisions are not a result of debate and analysis, reference to the constitution or stare decisis. Those are sophistry camoflauging the stark political prejudices that decide law.
Life terms exacerbate an arrogance that promotes a blindness of the judges to their prejucices. Anecdotal experience with "The Judge's Club" suggests this is worse at the state level. Support of colleagues' decisions regularly takes precedence over Black Letter Law.
Decisions such as Bush v Gore, Heller and voting rights protections might better be decided by a coin flip.
I hope we acknowledge the Court operates by political party. It should be revised to limited terms so appointments are balanced between the parties. This may restore some credibility to the Court after McConnell's antics, Bush v Gore, the Court's assault on voting rights- to be continued with rules on gerrymandering- and its appointment of Kavanaugh.
9
Can gays serve in the military? If so, then why not transgender? The argument about psychological issues does not hold water, because everyone, straight, gay , white, brown, you name it, has psychological issues.
I would like to point out one thing mentioned in this article that merits discussion: Should taxpayer dollars (military health insurance/medical procedures, etc) be allocated to the costs of transgenders transitioning while in the service? I think the prevailing attitude among most people is that electing to transgender is a choice, so why should Joe taxpayer be on the hook for that choice? I am not saying that transgender folks should not serve, only questioning who bears the costs of their transition.
2
@Steve You are incorrect about the prevailing attitude concerning the condition of being transgender. There are, however, plenty who elect to not undergo some of the surgical procedures available. The distinction may be one of language, but it is significant. The practical upshot is: hormones for transpeople, at least, ought to be regarded along the lines of other daily/periodic medications issued to various military personnel according to their ongoing medical conditions.
3
How is the feeling of being born in the wrong sex body a choice?
If the military does not want to pay for transitioning: fine. But it could save even more by kicking out smokers and all the fat ones (diabetes, heart disease, etc.).
I am not transgender, and do not want to pay for them! I am approaching 50 years of age, am 6 ft. tall and weight 155 lb. Do I want to pay for the fast food and ready-made-meal crowd? Not really! I don't even want to seen them in the streets! So I'd say: Out! Who else can I think of? - Out with them all!!!
This is America, the land of the free! I don't wanna have to do anything with anybody I don't approve of!!!
The USA were born out of pilgrims fleeing prejudice back in Europe. Unfortunately,human societies have always evolved in similar fashion,restricting freedoms of the few to placate the preconceived notions of the many.
It is the ultimate irony that the dystrumpian Supremos would ignore genuine experienced service persons' readiness to serve the country vetting a secretive process void of any legitimacy to deny the rights of worthy citizens.
Booze loving temper tantrum prone high court judges are a GO,while highly experienced soldiers are verboten.Also sprachen die Knechten von Herrn Trump (So spoke the servants of mr Trump)
Conservatism is touching here an absolute Nadir.
6
The military is not about rights. Despite anything a recruiter says, it's not about having a career. It's about an organization that can successfully defend the United States, period.
Anything that increases its ability to do its job stays. Anything that interferes with its ability to do its job has to go. The Chiefs of Staff and the President have made their determination in this matter, and that ought to be final.
10
@Daedalus And the heads of each branch of service have testified to Congress that there is no problem in having transgender service; indeed, in terms of performance reviews, many perform above the norm. The only potentially negative comment came from the Marine Corps, expressing concern about medical costs of transitioning (a cost that was not mentioned by any of the other heads because it is so negligible in the overall medical budgets; any service member may have medical costs that the military is forced to bear, such as negligence in training, friendly fire, etc, so cost is hardly an issue). Thus, the Chiefs are fine with transgender service. It is only the President, in his typical fit of pique to reverse anything Obama did and to appease the socially conservative part of his base that is still mired in a 1950s view of sexuality, that thought upsetting the status quo to eliminate dedicated patriots from service was a good idea.
Way to go, Private Bone Spurs.
1
Totally agree! And get rid of all the overweight members as well! They are no good either! - Who else?
Frankly, I would float the notion that with the loss of transgender people from the military, a draft might have to be reinstated. Since so many people don't want a draft because suddenly military service is not just the responsibility of "someone else," I think it could have an impact on renewing their support for transgendered people to remain in the military.
3
@Paul in NJ your point is catchy but what percentage of the military is transgender? Not large enough that their exclusion from the ranks needs to be made up for with a draft.
I mean, "the justices chose not to protect the rights of transgender patriots like me" is a great headline," but it implies that the Constitution had nothing to do with any of it. Whether people like it or not, the law in this regard can be interpreted in a range of ways, and this sort of vapid rhetoric against the majority loses track of that point. Of course we're all grateful for your service, but that gratitude can't be leveraged into constitutional rights or interpretations.
6
We must thank Brynn Tannehill for serving, and still aspiring to serve, our country in these dangerous but vital tasks. Trump is a creature of a culture war against modernity. Unfortunately, with his luck in able to stack the court, equal opportunities for many people will have to wait for another generation. I hope the RBG will hang on for at least two more years; otherwise, the situation will be even more dire. Election has consequences. Sad.
10
@Peter It's amazing to me that you call Trump's stacking of the Supreme Court "luck". It wasn't luck...it was a years-long, continuing task of the Republican party to steal the court by refusing, absolutely refusing, to even consider President Obama's choice. So now we're stuck with a person (Cavanaugh...I won't call him "man") who is clearly emotionally unstable as a SC Justice. "It's not fair!" he cried. "It's just not fair!"
1
@Peter
Indeed, just enough Dems and independent voters were too busy being angry at Hillary (for Bernie), that they let a fool and a master manipulator run the government. Yes, we will not recover for a generation if that.
2
@Joe You refuse to call someone who is clearly a man "a man" because you disagree with his politics... but you don't think gender should be a political issue? It seems you have some issues to resolve in your mind.
1
The Supreme Court got this one right. If disabled people cannot serve in the military, persons like this surely cannot either. The cost to the public is too great and is an unfair burden on the taxpayer.
8
@Uncommon Wisdom - Did you not read - at his or her "own expense"? There is no burden on the taxpayer, except a fully trained helicopter pilot (that cost taxpayer money) - is not allowed to fly. This at a time where the Air Force is considering lowering the educational prerequisites for pilots, due to lack of candidates.
17
You should read the article. Much research went into making sure that the expenses of having trans people in the military was negligible, and the research proved that it was. This is not expensive.
2
@Please Certainly Brynn Tannerhill went at their"own expense" but that is not in the means of most people. I suspect a big part of the push-back derives from not wanting to pay for medical expenses and the arguments of what is cosmetic and what is necessary.
This shows the reason for action by Congress, rather than decision by executive branch. What can be decided by one, can be overturned by another. That is mostly what the Court said. They did not rule on the merits of the case.
2
Transgender and LGBTQ rights in general are at the very core of the conflict between the Trump administration and the giant constituency mobilized against it. This policy is spun from the political agenda of Evangelical Christians and virtually no one else. They reject transgender rights and Gay rights in general because it points directly at their religious ideology. They view the cultural transformations of the last half century as a direct threat to their insular mid twentieth century culture that rejects ideas that most of us take for granted. They reject transgender identity, LGBTQ identities in general, the reproductive rights of women and any laws that interfere with their theocratic worldview. So no family planning, no requirement for secular education or the indoctrination of secular views for their children, no policies that oppose the traditional family or show competition for its legitimacy. They are right at home with the world of 1950 when Gays and transgender people were all in the closet, when public school prayer was mandatory, when abortion was largely illegal, when out of wedlock births were shamed and public assistance for unwed mothers did not exist. It was when human evolution was not mandatory teaching practice and when virtually all forms of discrimination were considered private conduct immune from the protections of the U.S. Constitution. This is the world they yearn for. It is our job to oppose them at every step of the way.
26
I think Ms. Tannehill is putting the cart before the horse. No final decision has been reached, and their decision to temporarily reinstate the ban on new transgender recruits does not "signal" the Supreme Court's intent. Let's all take a deep breath and wait and see what happens from the Supreme Court. Ms. Tannehill will not be discharged from the military even with the temporary ban in place. No need to panic just yet.
4
@Kay White our military became the strongest ever when transgender was not allowed. We will be just fine going back to the principles before Obama tried to “fundamentally change” America.
1
Easy to say when it doesn't involve you or your life long dream.
First as a member of the LGBT community, I think we need to do a better job of education. First, a person who is fully transitioned as the author of this article is fully the gender they have transitioned to. They have changed all their ID and they present as the new gender. They are the "new" gender. The medical needs vary but there is no disability involved or out of normal medical needs. I stress this because they are fully deployable and can pass any appropriate physical fitness test.
There is zero reason to deny this person their desire to serve this nation.
Now for the problem in terms of military service. A person who is not fully transitioned represents additional medical costs and possibly higher medical needs. It may also hinder deployability.
These cases need to be decided on a case by case basis. For example the military might decide to retain a linguist or an intel analyst with specific and much needed skills and trade medical costs for locked in service as a retention vehicle.
I believe the confusion has been partly caused by our desire to include everyone. At what point do we stop being transgender is the question.
We see this on the confusion about the so called bathroom that locks a person into the gender on their birth certificate.
9
@william church Money, eh? Costs of human health care. This was the decree of Germany in 1937. So they began the arduous philosophy of annihilation of the weak and those they weakened.
To obstruct the admittance of someone with say, bone spurs as a physical abnormality that might affect the company is something you might understand. You obviously do not understand that what the Supreme Court has done is drawn a line in what is a person's lifestyle. A decision separating personal preference. Segregation. Separate but equal.
What the Supreme Court has done in this case is begin the process of creating a confederacy under their own un-elected but appointed judgement outside of the Legislative Branch and the representation of the citizenry.
You don't understand that this line drawn is what we as Americans banded together to win in the 2nd World War, which was not a slam dunk by any means. It took everyone.
@william church - It makes me wonder at how the military handles the Intersex soldiers.
Take comfort that the moral arc of the universe will eventually bend toward justice, but it is indeed long. Today, the Supreme Court has chosen to allow a minority to be scapegoated for transparently political purposes, a decision that will be remembered alongside such landmark errors as Dred Scott v. Sanford. You have earned our respect, Ms. Tannehill; you do not deserve to be treated like this.
29
I think there are medical conditions that may be too complicated to be handled effectively during military service, DEPENDING on the type of service or job involved. There should be criteria that are independent of gender or sexual identity to determine this for each type of job.
6
@tjsiii The military has no problem sending people into areas where they will be torn apart or blown up by munitions, resulting in some pretty complicated medical conditions.
Put that aside, transgender service is not a military issue, it is a political hobbyhorse.
Republican politicians (the vast majority never spent a moment in the military, including the draft dodging Trump) need this issue to keep the evangelicals stirred up.
Transgender citizens, like furloughed federal workers, are hostages to the political moment.
The big questions is who will the administration go after next?
10
trump is wrong and the Court is wrong. Transgender people are full citizens and should be encouraged and thanked for their willingness to serve. We allowed Gorsuch to sit in a stolen seat ( he may not want to get political, but his seat was available only because of politics) and we allowed Kavanaugh and Thomas to sit despite credible evidence of their unfitness to serve. Why are these judges allowed to make decisions on who is fit to serve our country?
37
The vast majority of undocumented immigrants and illegal drugs enter the country at ports of entry, but conservatives will spend billions on a wall (excluding upkeep) under the pretense that it will keep us safe.
Men and women want to fight against actual threats against this country, but their gender makes conservatives feel uncomfortable so soldiers are sidelined.
This is not really about making America safe, it's about making America as white, English-speaking, and "Christian" as is possible.
48
Of course this ruling was bound to go against the grain of people who believe in civil rights. With a solid majority of republican appointees on the court, some of whom can be classified as from the right wing of the political spectrum, the more liberal citizens of the nation can expect a full blown attack on our civil rights.
17
The speed bumps in culture which slow us down are all boundaries. The boundaries between life and death, male and female, rich and poor, black and white force us to declare a side and take a stand.
We are riven by the effort and, in parallel fashion, rendered blind to the Other, however defined.
We fertilize the ground on which we stand and seek to poison the seedbed for the Other with a tsunami of epithets.
We sharpen our scissor statements to weaponize them.
More and more of our efforts will be given over to pushing the Other away until all we are doing is fighting to stay apart.
However much each of us seeks hegemony for our "side", we desperately need to understand we have much more in common with the Others than we have differences.
The best outcome for each of us and for all of us is to realize this and work together for a better world.
Either we beat our verbal swords into plowshares or we fall upon them.
11
Many people have medical conditions which require constant medical intervention and monitoring or which otherwise render them unfit for service.
Transgenderism which, at best, requires constant medical intervention and therapies and, at worse, makes a person more prone to suicide if such interventions and therapies are not constantly available, is such a medical condition.
Persons with diabetes generally aren't allowed to service. Persons with psychological disorders generally aren't allowed to serve. When transgender people want medical intervention, the say trangenderism is just such a condition, either a medical or psychological disorder.
When transgender persons want something else at odds with having such a condition, they argue it is not such a condition.
28
You are very mistaken about the needs of transgendered people.
Further, as stated in the article, there is inactive duty status for those who need medical care. Once the treatment is completed, an inactive service person can apply for active service. All of this was explained in the article.
If a person has been declared fit to serve in some capacity by military medical personnel, that is good enough for me. And it should have been good enough for this WH and the SCOTUS.
39
@Gusting
Ok then when shouldn't people with psychological disorders who have been stable for years with confirmation from their doctors all be automatically deemed unfit with no exceptions?
All trans people have had serious psychological issues, and I don't mean that in a condescending way or that there is anything wrong with this. It's just reality. Either the two groups get assessed equally or neither group is fit.
4
@EmmaJuen
Your argument might have some merit except for the fact that we all know this ban was not proposed in the interest of this country’s security and based on factual criteria. As so many other actions taken by this White House it is motivated by a desire to pander to the intolerant base and to further promote its agenda of exclusion. This sector of the voting population believes that people should be excluded from the American dream based on color, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, you name it. This is very un-American and I’m convinced that the opposite will prevail in the end.
5
Elections have consequences. Perhaps we will learn our lesson in 2020 to be more engaged and involved in our politics. We must learn that those who stay home have an indirect say in the direction our nation takes. Be prepared for more bad policies to be upheld by an increasingly partisan Supreme Court. And, if any thing should happen to Justice Ginsberg, prepare for an avalanche of decisions from a high court of right-leaning judicial activists.
29
The affliction that bone spurs causes gets in the way here.
This is legislation, not some internal military strategy. This is about the citizenry serving. We offer ourselves to perform the ultimate sacrifice for democracy yet are treated as tools for Citizens United, a corporate club created by the Supreme Court.
A decision concerning the direct effect of our serving up life and accepting death for our country has no business picking and choosing lifestyles according to some corporate model of personality.
The interpretations cherrypicking The Constitution as if it is a pageant award for best American reveals the same mindset in 1934 Germany.
By creating a master race within the citizenry exposes dark preferences that have dogged this land for centuries. This display as law excludes able bodied Americans willing and ready to fight for democracy, democracy at stake here along with the right to be a living and breathing person whoever you are and from wherever you came to be a part of what is supposed to be great but looks pretty tawdry at this juncture.
The people I've known who fought in the 2nd World War were as diverse as our nation is. The great part of fighting and dying was to preserve our respect and care and consideration for each and everyone of us. It wasn't a political choice to eliminate fascism, it was a humane and loving one.
27
Constitutional Conservative Judges believe America made a big mistake when we freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote, and don't even get started on the rights of gay people.
Constitutional Conservatives believe that because none of these groups of Americans were specifically named in the constitution they therefore deserve no protections, even though our constitution is founded on the basic principle that "all men are created equal" and that every American citizen is entitled to equal treatment under the law.
46
@Ronny
I hope you don't actually believe your own ridiculous blather. There aren't any judges who believe we should still have slavery, and that women shouldn't have the right to vote. If you do actually believe it, where is one sliver of evidence?
Ms Tannehill,
I can only respect your determination, desire to serve and dedication to your profession. There is no reason based upon facts or ethical concepts that should prevent you from serving.
Trump needs the support of the Christian Right, without which his Presidency would probably collapse, as the GOP overall wouldn't find supporting him to be worthwhile. Unfortunately, the Christian Right is exemplified by this sort of intolerance and bigotry, so Trump is as well.
One might hope that a sense of decency would override his political ambitions. But this is Mr. Bone Spurs we're talking about. Pious hypocrisy takes the place of decency in him and many of his supporters.
Keep the faith.
56
@MassBear
"Trump needs the support of the Christian Right, without which his Presidency would probably collapse,..."
I would say his Presidency is already collapsing with or without the "Christian " right.
1
It's a sad day when a person who didn't even show up to basic training- can dictate policy against those who are willing to serve their country.
138
So would you agree that any non-veteran should be disqualified from becoming President of the United States?
2
Does the U.S. military need skilled and dedicated Naval Helicopter Pilots? Yes it does. Is the person profiled in this article just the person for the job? Yes again. End of list. Well another day perhaps. But not today.
45
you write "The Supreme Court decision isn’t about me, though. It isn’t even about the dozens of people I advised to follow a path back to service similar to mine. It is about what this means for transgender people in the United States as a whole."
It is actually about the security of the United States.
you also write "the decision signals a weakening of any shelter transgender people might find under the Equal Protection Clause". Transgender people have great protections compared to twenty and 120 years ago. Active duty in combat units, for now, is one place where they may see a setback, perhaps, if this ruling stands.
3
@Concerned EU Resident
I think you are right to say there will be no apology. The fact is, Trump has never apologized for anything, and the Supreme Court he fashions will reflect that.
I would remind you, however, that when you compare this ruling to a stock market correction, you should be mindful that the overall trend of the markets is upward. The arc of history, it has been noted, is long but it bends toward justice.
15
Yes dividing people like the right does is the superior hypocricy, if equal protection under the law is disregarded in favor of pure corrupt use of political power devoid of humanity.
@Concerned EU Resident
Did you really read the article? Since you don't seem to deny the fact that "the chiefs of staff of all four service branches of the military have testified to Congress that there have been no issues (with transgenders)", I don't understand your opinion.
I also do not understand why you distinguish between left and right. This is about the right to be yourself, and nothing else.
We used to be a country. We aren't a country anymore. We're more like a crowd, milling around wondering what to do next. Each day it seems we do more damage to ourselves and others instead of doing more good and working to create a way to restore believing in ourselves and others.
We likely got this way because we were not paying attention to the people we were electing who simply had agendas that had some small appeal to us but never really addressed the human beings that we were and the humanity within us and that humanity in the rest of the world.
We may someday regain and reinvent our country but right now we are like the people that spent 40 years wandering in the dessert. As a country we had flaws but also had the courage to move forward and work toward fixing it. Our leaders don't seem to understand what humanity is and is all about.
36
Brynn, this is beautiful and beautifully written. It is also heartbreaking. The United States need more people like you to feel safe under their watch, not less. With my admiration and heartfelt thanks, I feel your personal combat will not be useless, in time.
52
Nothing more annihilating to our collective humanity than hate codified into law. Who are these people legitimising hate with taxpayers’ money?
44
At the end of my life, I am ready to give up on America. For decent Americans, it is probably time to emigrate to a better country. The American dream has died here.
2
"The moral arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice."
We are in a time when forces are bending the arc away from justice. We can only hope that, in a short time, we can reverse its trajectory.
27
The well promulgated fear of the other, the main strategy in the Russian psychological warfare playbook, strikes again. In fact it underlies today’s news feed; fear permits the NRA (yikes also Russian) manipulation of some already well armed persons, and of course it’s fear that desires a wall, also at all costs, and as our basic infrastructure is crumbling. The reality is we are all one & our human, environmental & economic systems are interrelated. So fear prevents us from seeing & responding to reality; fear is the mind & democracy killer & it’s destroying people’s lives. We each must learn about our emotions & thoughts & responses before we can relate beyond the self; life’s lessons await US.
15
The so-called president of the United States, elected by a minority of voters, supported by a minority of the total population, respectful of only a wealthy minority of that minority, kept in office by a minority of the entire elected Congress, is laughing with his majority of SCOTUS judges, who would happily return the US to the 1950s. It's reprehensible and unjust. Ultimately a price must be paid for this. It could be the republic, or it could be just be the Republican Party. The latter would be just, deserved and welcome.
54
@Larry Bennett I think they want to return us to the 1850s.
Who needs those pesky 13th, 14th and 19th amendments?
1
@Larry Bennett - I suspect Justice Thomas has no interest in living back in the 1950s
This decision reflects the archaic minds/thinking of the conservatives on the court. We know that the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of this decision will set back the civil rights of many human beings for decades.
18
This reminds me of an article I saw about transgender runners. Since males and females are typically separated in races to account for the average greater strength in biologic males in comparison to females, there was public controversy about the possible genetic advantage transgender females could have in races. This is looking at averages in data comparing biologic males and females. Averages do not show diversity in data (meaning tell you about individual cases) but they do have meaning in probability. The oganizer of the races, in an effort to be accepting to trans runners, differentiated females and males by their levels of testosterone. However, averages do not account for all individuals, and some natural females had testosterone levels higher than the cut off. That meant biologic females had to take pills to lower their natural testosterone levels, weakening themselves before the race. They could not put their best selves forward in the sport they loved, and were told that if they wanted to run, they had to either change themselves or run in the make race. They were told they were not real woman. That does not seem like a good solution. Anyone got a better solution to the female vs male races? Another possibility is another whole race group for trans races, but that is not a good solution either. How do you make this fair without alienating anyone? And why does Trump think it is a good idea to carve a chunk out of our military by banning trans soldiers?
5
@Anonymous
A cunundrum, indeed.
Perhaps there should no longer be “male” and “female” races. Just let everyone run/play tennis/play football/apply for scholarships as humans?
@Anonymous You are a man of many words. Your wisdom, insight, understanding. The only race I'm aware of is the race to enter the narrow door and few are finding it. Man's interlect is like wind, it comes and goes and no one takes notice and it's gone. Your medical degree in the human anatomy fasinates me and I will take it to my grave. I want you to read ECCLESIASTES in the Bible, look into a mirror and tell me what you see and you will understand the point I am trying to make and this goes to all who read this comment. A man once said I look upon the vast oceans and it makes me feel insignificant. Read ECCLESIASTES and tell me again about the vast oceans and how insignificant you feel.
It's a tragedy that a person with your qualifications and passion is not allowed to serve our country. Worse, the decision was made for a president not worthy of his office and to satisfy the views of a minority of our population.
51
Brynn Tannehill has my empathy. I hope that cheap bigotry won't last.
32
@Pierce Randall I hate to be the one to say this but not everything is racism or bigotry. I love my country and therefore I want what's best for our military that defends it. Just because somebody has an opposing opinion doesn't make them a bigot or racist or any other derogatory term.
I would agree with Ellla Washington, many are rejected for active military service due to medical conditions that require constant maintenance. Additionally, the author himself/herself, stated that after all research there are minimal complications for the military. Having served in the military any complications can affect unit operations or morale. Being an academy grad he/she should know this and not be selfish the good of the service comes first ALWAYS.The military is not a social experiment.Its purpose is to the further the objectives of our country when diplomacy has failed. This involves destroying our enemy , not hand-holding and singing kumbaya. ( And once again it's Trump's fault LOL)
25
@RC I'm not sure where you find any "selfishness" by this 16 year Blackhawk Fighter Pilot. This person has been clinically described by Psychiatrists as someone who has a natural mentality and ability to successfully carryout the complexity of being a fighter pilot. I would have to assume that this would be a rare quality to find in people. This person voluntarily enrolled in the military, risking thier own life to fight and protect the freedom, democracy and values of the US, which so many take for granted.
The only "selfishness" I see within the overall decision to ban Transgendered people whether Active Duty or aspiring recruits to serve, and continue their career, is Trump's decision to enforce the ban peroid. Once again Trump has fabricated a social issue as if it's a threat to the US safety or military readiness, none of which is true.
There are only about 2500 enlisted transgendered men or women serving, quite an insignificant number to call for a Supreme Court ruling.
There are no credible sources to support the ban. This is a ploy created by Trump to "selfishly" appeal to a small base of extremely loyal supporters, people who approve any decision or action regardless of its basis.
All four Military branches Cheif of Staff are publicly against the ban, stating there has been no negative impact associated with Transgendered service members. So why is this ban an issue? Especially at such a extreme level.
116
@RC Your assesssment should then be easy to prove - because there are actually transgender people serving in the military services. Maybe you could cite some incidents or failed missions with transgender soldiers causing the problem. I think that is the point here: such examples were never presented - neither by the Trump administration nor anyone testifying about this issue. And then the “argument” becomes just a prejudice - and that is the issue here.
36
@RC
You are turning the whole thing on its head. The military typically struggles to recruit competent people. Now conservatives have removed a group of potential candidates for no other reason than to fight a cultural war.
They do this because it fits their religious world view. Why should the armed forced be unnecessarily impaired to cater to Christian fundamentalist values?
This fits a pattern in the US, where you make everything that does not fit a strict religious standard into a huge problem. Do you not ever wonder why transgender people and public bathrooms is not a debate topic in other western democracies?
But in the US transgender bathrooms, gay cakes etc becomes big issues because conservatives are fighting a cultural war. Anyone not fitting a strict Christian idea of family life is perceived as a threat. My advice: just chill. Don't manufacture problems that don't exist.
13
No denouncements by the medical community nor anyone involved in psychiatry, psychology, social sciences or even the military will make a difference.
In the mind of a person like Trump, facts don't matter. Science doesn't matter. Sociology doesn't matter. The only thing that matters to him and his desperate power-grabber, Stephen Miller, is what they think his "base" believes.
The people in that "base", as well as most conservative think tankers, seem to have assumed they can gather political strength by attacking (usually by dog whistle tactics) anyone who's "different". That includes those who make choices in accordance with their gender feelings.
Every day, with those people in the White House and in the Senate, brings to mind that chilling saying which originated in the Third Reich:
"First they came for the socialists - and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist".
After a few more verses it ends with:
"Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."
I AM SPEAKING OUT FOR YOU!!
92
Please read this article: https://www.out.com/out-exclusives/2016/9/20/hormone-therapy-lifesaving-why-no-one-studying-its-long-term-effects
The article is a couple years old but the side effects and risks remain the same.
Folks using hormone treatments are experiencing significant side effects from their drug regimen, including inability to think clearly and dehydration - two factors that would obviously make for an unfit, unready soldier. Taking hormone drug treatments is now common in the transgender community, and as described in the article, once begun hormone treatment is usually continued indefinitely.
Plenty of other hormonal side effects result, including thromboembolic events in people taking estrogen (either as treatment for menopause or for gender reassignment) and cancers in people taking Testosterone.
Hormone treatments leave patients in an unstable physical state, and are not much more than experimental at this point but they do have massive impacts on mood and psychology as well as energy levels and the body's ability to regulate body temperature and hydration.
Many potential recruits are rejected for service on the grounds of having a medical condition needing constant maintenance. The military is right not to allow troops to experiment on their bodies in this manner and compromise the readiness of all.
23
@Ella Washington You can't generalize all transgendered people based on hormonal treatment and possible side effects. The military doesn't just casually put someone in a position of a Blackhawk Fighter Pilot without extensive training and psychological testing. Everyone has their own talents and passions. Very few people are able to successfully execute this type specialized job. I don't buy your claim to this article. The most influential psychiatric doctors could not find a reason that Transgendered people could successfully serve equally in the military. Nor did the top ranking members of each military branch state the inclusion of transgendered people had any negative impact within the Military.
26
@Ella Washington
Then I assume you would have banned JFK from the navy on the basis of his Addison's disease, which is also an endocrine disorder and has some of the same effects.
13
It isn't the military who is proposing this ban. It's the president who hasn't the first clue of what it means to serve in the military much less any expertise whatsoever in this area.
13
Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh truly deserve one another. The once highest respected court in the Nation is as dysfunctional as the White House. I am totally apprehensive and fearful of the leadership and future of our country.
62
Keep your eye on the prize, that's what Trump does. The prize being Vladimir Putin's approval. This degradation of the military is yet another bone to Putin with the inadvertent acquiescence of the Supreme Court of the United States. Seen through this jeweler's loop, everything comes into focus. It's Putin first, Putin last, and Putin's always. The 'compromat' may be the most mundane matter imaginable, but it's monumental to Trump. Even the sacrifice of the United States of America.
31
Beautifully written column. Thank you for sharing your unique life experience, and thank you for your service to our country, both in and out of uniform.
125
It's a real shame that our government can't see fit to simply turn a blind eye to people's personal choices. Why certain elements in our country insist on limiting the rights of others to avoid their own discomfort is beyond me.
That said, I'm finding it hard to view this as an outrageous tragedy. In the end, it is a personal decision whether or not to transition - not an absolute necessity. We are lucky to live in a time when it is even medically possible. (Isn't it, after all, a bit bizarre to whine about and feel entitled to modern amenities that didn't even exist a couple hundred years ago?) Ms. Tannehill knew the military's policies and the risks of her decisions before transitioning. Many people who are born with disabilities or certain other traits are never so lucky.
11
You do realize that this has nothing to do with a 'choice' right? This was not some fashion issue where you decide what to be one day. There is a biological reality involved in being transgender that few people understand, but many fear irrationally. Conservatives at the top of that list unfortunately...
35
@Me
Are you saying that one's real gender isn't a choice, or that whether or not to transition isn't a choice? I took the original post to be referring to the latter.
@WhatMacGuffin I don't think it's bizarre at all. We're all entitled to many things that didn't exist a couple hundred years ago, such as most of today's readily available medical technology, the right to vote for non-landowners, an education, etc. I'm not sure why it's confusing to you, but this is how things work. We advance as a species and a society and the goal post of what we can do and should do for each other continues to move as we do.
3
Thank you Ms. Tannehill for your service, and I’m so very sorry that your distinguished military service had to end this way. As you mentioned, it has nothing to do with you, but has to do with Donald Trump. My daughter is a helicopter pilot and loves to fly, I can imagine how devastated she would be if she was told she can’t fly because of her sexual orientation, rather than whether she is competent or not.
68
@BB
Sexual orientation is not the same as transgender. Gay people don't need to change anything about ourselves in order to live happily, it's other people's problem with us. We wear what we want and remain the homosexuals we are. (Sex being what's between your legs, gender being what's between your ears.)
In the case of trans folks, they can't live with themselves as they are and feel an external change is necessary to reflect their sense of internal (whether its a change of clothes, a change of language, a change of medical treatment etc.)
2
Thank you for your service. You are far braver than most humans.
We are With you all the way- clear light surrounding
56
Byrnn, thank you so much for your many years of service. And for your efforts at helping yourself and other transgender people serve their country honorably. I believe this battle may be lost for know, but the war itself is not. I believe that reason will prevail in the end. But, it is such a loss to all of us, that reason loses the day for now.
32
Ultimately as a person of conscience, what good is a life of unbearable guilt – of tolerating killings? For I just can’t truly and honestly persuade my loved ones that it’s fine for the innocent people to cry in pain and die as long as they don’t happen right in front of our own eyes. Even in exchange for our own survival.
Especially when your own government discriminates against you. When your country praises you as a hero, but isn't serious at all about taking care of you after your services are done. Actions speak louder than the words.
True heroes are those who use nonviolence to change the world - like MLK. Until the military takes the vow of nonviolence, resist the flattery of a hero talk.
7
@BLOG joekimgroup.com Singing Kumbaya doesn’t protect people and their nation’s from people who wish to do them harm. Look at countries with weak militaries in WWII. The Germans defeated them in days or they had to agree to being taken over because they knew they could not protect themselves.
1
@Olivia Therefore the wars and killings continue in this world. I'm sorry that somewhere somehow, you've given up on morality. But I hope you won't try to drag down those hopeful minds who have the courage to stand up for morality and peace.
Wars can produce short-term victories, but never a permanent solution. It’s because wars breed extreme hatred through unbearable downpour of injustice. And the hatred keeps multiplying and spinning out of control. A long-term, lasting world peace can’t be attained through A mass murder called war.
It’s because moral ends can’t be reached through immoral means.
1
It is my understanding that the court ruling today only pertains to transitioning while in the service. It does not impact persons already serving, or those who have transitioned prior to seeking to serve. It is my understanding, however wrongheaded it may be, that the thrust of the conservative opposition is to prevent the government from having to pay for transitioning.
Most importantly, thank you for your past, and hopefully your future service.
14
Unfortunately, this is all a "long game" now, i.e. running out the clock until the 2020 Presidential election, and then hoping for someone other than either current president or vice president to win the office. The good news is that there fewer days left in the current administration than have already passed.
8
@Joseph Taylor - Now is the time make sure that everyone who eligible to vote is properly on the register and knows how and when to go and where to vote. Bad things happen when good people do nothing. x
If everyone who voted against Trump the last time took one new person with them you would double the vote and 3,000,000 more people voted against Trump the last time!!
I hope the Democrats make this a campaign issue. It’s almost as likely to insure President Trump’s re-election as identity politics and the war on men.
6
@William. Do you realize how few are affected? It’s not an issue at all.
1
Indeed, let’s keep the focus on corruption at the highest levels and selling the US and its allies out to the Russians.
War on men? Care to elaborate?
As a veteran I disagree with the policy to bar or discharge transgendered people. That said, no one has a 'right' to serve in the military. Military service may share a number of similarities with civilian jobs, but it's not just another job. And a president's authority over the services has always been protected by Supreme Court decisions throughout our history. This issue, among so many others, is why votes and elections count. Everyone knew this was something Trump would do, and he has done it. The next president will probably choose to change this policy and there will undoubtedly be individuals or groups that will sue to prevent it. If those cases make it to the Supreme Court, they will probably once again side with the president and his authority as commander in chief.
7
@KCF No one had the “right” to a drivers license either, but denying one on the basis of being trans is no less irrational and cruel than using that as the basis for denying a helicopter pilot the right to serve our country.
23
@KCF The military has long held that there is no "right" to serve, which is true at the individual level, but where is "right" in disqualifying an entire class of people if some of them are able (and willing) to serve?
Your argument has been used by the military in denying African Americans equal opportunity to serve (until Truman's EO in 1948), women (1951), the Japanese and other ethnic groups.
Denying a class of people from serving is denying them full citizenship, which included both the benefits and burdens of serving one's country.
20
@KCF -- Would you defend the President's authority over the armed services if he wanted to return to, say, racial segregation of the armed services?
Making research-based decisions is something the GOP has not been able to do since I left the party in the early 90s. Research and facts do not support the party's religious dogma and prejudices or its preference to prioritize corporate profits over the well-being of our citizenry, our environment, our economy and our place in the world. They don't seem to care what damage they do, as long as they manipulate their base to keep them in power -- and their base is more than happy to bask in the bias confirmation. Ignorance truly is bliss.
51
@VT1985 Excellent observation, VT. Thank you for sharing it.
@VT1985
I don't think either parties views are unconscionable. An easy example is abortion. How could you vote for someone who defends the right to murder? How could you vote for someone who takes away your right to make decisions about your body? What if the fetus which is alive kills the mother but survives? Certain logic might result in a conviction of manslaughter. What about the fetuses rights to decisions about its healthcare? Can fetuses write a DNR? From at least one perspective we are all vile.
We are fast returning to the Dark Ages in our thoughts, our responses to complicated issues...and normal human decency. I would say to the born-agains and right wingers, the lyrics of the old song "God Don't Make Junk." Scripture says "We are created in the image of God". I would point out that if they believe in the words of Jesus, this ruling is blasphemous. Their Jesus would "cast them out."
17
There are quite a few of us that feel as you do. Do not be fooled by Trumps reign that we have all fallen in line behind him.
1
I was so disappointed upon hearing this decision today. I'm sorry that you and other transgender military members have to deal with this setback. You deserve America's gratitude and respect for serving or willingness to serve. President Trump is all about building obstacles, bans, and demeaning people (including American military) by disrupting the ranks -- this from a man who hasn't served anything in life but himself. He wouldn't know the meaning of honor, sacrifice and courage. You do you. I hope this ban is soon overturned.
48
Thank you for your service to the country and to the trans community. As a trans person this decision has angered me because it is the old story of America, hated trying to find yet another foothold and in the process further marginalizing an already oppressed group of people. It angers me because, as you so eloquently explain, there’s no rational basis for the ban. It angers me because instead of making progress agains hate when hate is on the ropes, the ban and the court’s support for it give it new life. It angers me becasuse I want to give my children a better world and this does the opposite.
49
Brynn Tannehill, hang in there. Hoping the decision is an indelible stain on the court and hoping it is a warning to other courts now dealing with this issue and those to come. My father, African American, told me how he had to fight for the right to fight for this country – and he was doing that when lynching was the law of the land (almost ).
54
As a fellow vet, I think you should have been allowed to serve again. However, I also think your conclusion here is one that vastly misstates your situation and the DOD directive.
The policy in question is one that DOD came up with as a compromise. For new recruits it does NOT bar someone who is transgender. It does bar someone who has unresolved gender dysphoria until they've had corrective surgery at their own expense AND 3 years have passed. At that point, if a mental health professional clears you, you're good to go.
Besides leaving that part of the directive out, you do a nice job of shading the truth a bit for those unfamiliar with military contracts. If you went into the reserves in 2008, the standard contract is for either 4 or 6 years active reserves and the remainder in the IRR, which is very much NOT for 'medical issues.' In either case, unless my math is completely wrong, from 2016 onwards you weren't in the military at all. You were a civilian just like the rest of us, but as a prior service vet you had training the military might find valuable.
That's great, and I wish you could have gotten your 20 so you could get a pension. I'm also sorry the clock was running out on you on age through no fault of your own, but you are FAR from alone in having that happen to you. Once you're out, you're at the whims of the needs of the service, age waivers and all.
Good luck to you as a veteran.
31
@HaroldS
And the issue really is whether the military should be providing this surgery when there is little hard literature to support it especially since the military is going to be responsible for the long term complications whatever they might be....hormonal, surgical, psychological. If the military did not provide long term care and benefits to soldiers for service connected or aggravated issues, broadly defined, then if Brynn can fly for three or four more years to get her 20 more power to her but that is not the case.
4
“But it speaks volumes about where we are as a country that the opportunity for many to serve should be denied by the prejudices of a few”.
This sums up almost every aspect of the American landscape today from gun safety to healthcare to immigration.
83
The "Twitter ban" amounts to one more example of this administration deciding that people aren't American enough, by its definition(s), to be treated like everybody else.
I'm really tired of it and the ensuing cycle: taking precipitate, punitive action; trying to justify improvised procedure based on ill-considered policy; consuming government resources as it cycles through the court system; Mr. Trump and his administration doubling down; and back to the courts.
If Mr. Trump and his administration were familiar with our constitution, they'd know it's not up to them to decide which citizens are "American enough".
56
I would hope that people would be judged by the content of their character and abilities. But not in Trumps USA.
46
The reason that this decision has happened, is that transgender people are a small minority of people. The cost shouldn't be an issue, as over the last many decades, the courts, from the federal to the state, made it mandatory that all public places must provide all disabled Americans with facilities, and services, etc. to make their personal life, and work life easier. It is a very sad day that this can't be done for this group of people, who have given so much to not only this country, but to help themselves transition.
43
The armed forces encouraged its LGBT members to come out with the promise that it was safe to do so and still serve. This is a betrayal to those soldiers.
And whether you realize it or not the service will still have trans soldiers, but they’ll have to hide and pretend and suffer for no reason other than to give politicians a way to appease the hard-core evangelical base who think being trans is a moral affront.
This was never about readiness. It’s one step closer to the erosion of the separation of church and state.
222
@Joanna
" It’s one step closer to the erosion of the separation of church and state."
Excellent comment but, sorry, you're one administration too late.
Our lives are under the thumb of the Catholic/Evangelical cabal and will be until we wake up and put a stop to it.
The killer is we're paying these hateful people to wreck our country. First line of defense would be to pull their super-special tax status.
Not to slap blame around with too broad a brush, but we're dealing with the situation that prompted religious bigots to whine "Where are the good Muslims? All them Arabs are evil"
Yeah, where are the good Catholics, the good (like that could happen) Evangelicals? All them Christian bigots and lusters after worldly power and riches are evil.
Jesus is rolling around in his grotto, or heaven or wherever they put him, for sure.
3
@Joanna
Your sentiment is correct, but LGBTQs aren't all the same. Transgenders can't hide and pretend at all, they'd be exposed through their medical history and physical examination, among other things.
1
The author seems to accept that the military can draw an arbitrary line for age discrimination: "By then I will have likely aged out of my eligibility."
If it is okay to reject people, regardless of fitness and capability, because they're 3 months older than an arbitrarily drawn line, why wouldn't it be okay to reject people based on other personal characteristics?
I'm sorry for the author's personal situation, especially given that the military pension doesn't kick in fully until 20 years of service, but if the author wants to end discrimination, why not work to end all discrimination, including age-based?
14
@Philip Greenspun That is certainly an honorable goal. Fortunately, the author is not alone, so maybe you can step in and help with the age issue, while Brynn focuses on the transgender one. If we all work together, we can win this.
There is a scientific rationale behind age limitations while there is none for barring transgenders. You're comparing apples and oranges.
@Philip Greenspun
I agree we are not getting enough out of this individual. What other causes can we heap on her back? Graduating from the Naval Academy puts her in another minority. She might be accused of snobbery and privilege because of this. Please, Brynn, handle it.
Brynn....the 2016 Election was a Russian-Republican victory for White Male Christian Spite and their champion Spiter-In-Chief.
Keep in mind that the Impostor-In-Chief is - by choice - only President for about 40% of Americans; he literally doesn't care about the majority of Americans....and he hardly cares for the 40% that support him.
He's the first President America has ever had who governs specifically for the minority that elected him and not one damn American more.
America has no head of state with this so-called President.
America is a currently a headless state making headless decisions exclusively for a sad minority of brainless, spiteful heartland of fake Christians.
I'm sorry this happened to you, but you still have important service left to perform for your country, and that is helping to wipe the misanthropic, spiteful Republican Party off the face of the political map so that the injustice and bigotry that happened to you will not happen to others.
Remember in 2020, 2022, 2024 and 2026.
Republicans hate what America stands for and they can't stand democracy.
Let's give it to them good and hard in 2020.
348
@Socrates but he has changed the court for many years to come. I see a bleak future.
7
@Emliza
Socrates is right, we should take the long view. Freedom is not free.
Time for all of us to step up. As a trans woman, I take inspiration from the heroes of previous civil rights movements. They sustain me and teach me about the true nature of freedom.
Some would convince us that they get to determine the nature of the social fabric, but they would be wrong: whether they choose to see it or not, diversity exists; we exist. We are citizens too!
20
Socrates provides.
2
I served in the Navy. I'm also a transgender woman. I'm disgusted by the courts actions, but mostly I'm disgusted with Trumps actions. This was an unnecessary fight created out of spite and a desire to run up the fervor of the base.
The worst part though out of all of this, was getting abandoned by the liberals. I would have thought they would stand with me, but more and more I feel like the liberals wish they could just push us under the rug.
We are a small, weak, and powerless minority. We cannot win alone.
As someone who served in the military, I feel sad for the future of this nation.
78
Jacqueline
Please don’t blame the left for not making this issue a priority. As painful as it is for you and all compassionate Americans we’re at the point where the very fabric of our democracy is in tatters.
Ending the GOP stranglehold on American politics by strengthening voting rights and holding our representatives accountable will eventually result in equality for people of all genders. If we can’t do that, we won’t have even the shallow democracy we have now, and we won’t have equality.
If we don’t stop climate change, it won’t matter what genders are accepted.
There just isn’t enough water for all of the fires. I hope you understand that.
19
@Josh Wilson There most certainly is enough water for all the fires; I must disagree with you, wholeheartedly. If liberals have time to complain about Halloween costumes and Louis CK making jokes again, we definitely have time to support folks who truly need us. If this particular issue is not at the top of your list, I completely understand, and I am not judging you at all. Fortunately, there are many of us who can pick up that slack while you focus on issues you feel better equipped to fight.
Jacqueline, we are both out, proud members of the LGBT community, and as your brother in arms, I stand with you. As a cis-gendered man, I am not sure what I can do to help, but if you ask anything of me, I’ll do my best, I promise. It seems that the liberals in power (congress, for example) need to step in. What can i do to help you get your message to them, and to others who are in a position to affect changes on your behalf?
17
@Jacqueline ? Please elaborate. I am not sure what you are alluding to, but I confess my ignorance given that I do not identify as either liberal or conservative. In fact, as a professor, I ban those words from my critical thinking course because they have essentially lost meaning.
Still, I think you have history of which I am ignorant and would benefit from be aware.
2
To take qualified, trained members of our (non-partisan) armed forces and bar them from serving is ominous for far more than trans soldiers. It attempts to legitimize discrimination throughout society. If trans people can’t fight for our country, can we not be police? Or judges? Or doctors? Or educators? Where does that stop (asked the transgender professor who has dedicated her life to teaching)?
And when groups of people lose their rights it’s never just about them. If the administration is coming for trans people, and you don’t stand up because you’re not trans, then the next step isn’t just erasing trans people from society, but ridding the military of the rest of its LGB force. Not for cause, but for ideology. And then they’ll go after the next disenfranchised minority.
Discrimination is never what made this country great. That we currently have five justices on SCOTUS who are willing to endorse enacting that ban, even temporarily, would only happen if they’d already decided trans people serving is a problem (despite fact-based studies by RAND showing they aren’t).
At a time when it’s difficult to recruit a full military, to turn away people willing to give their lives in service to our country is a dark day indeed. And it’s only getting darker.
133
@Joanna You obviously did not read the fine details of the ruling. It is not banning them from serving. The media would want you to believe that. I think you need to review the ruling.
@Jay, actually I'm fairly familiar with the issue. Current members will be able to continue to serve (for now), but openly transgender people, who previously were able to do so, are not allowed to join in any capacity. Frankly, it bodes poorly for all LGBT service members, but current active trans military particularly. I believe, but would have to check, that current trans military couldn't re-up during this period.
It overrules district court stays of the policy restricting trans service (which if passed at SCOTUS includes active duty). To do that meant that the administration didn't have to suffer a pretty certain defeat in the 9th circuit (where the stays were issued) before being heard at SCOTUS.
It's a pretty good leading indicator that those rulings against the ban will be overturned since five judges have already decided that waiting to enact is a threat to defense, lethality, readiness, and unit cohesion, because SCOTUS doesn't just skip due process without a compelling urgent reason (in this case national security). They've decided that without having heard the case. If anyone expects Kavanaugh to flip once they hear it then I'm afraid they'll be sorely disappointed. Roberts was the best shot for joining the four, but deciding to enact rather than continue the stay and expedite the hearing is a really bad leading indicator.
just saying.
2
Thank you for your service, and equally important, thank you for your pursuit of justice — and for helping educate all of us about transgender issues and (in my opinion) the ridiculous challenges you face when trying to serve your country to the benefit of all Americans. Please don’t abandon that mission, even if you may not be able to return to active duty yourself. The causes of freedom and tolerance need articulate, authentic voices like yours.
77
Tannehill wishes to acquaint his condition to a medical problem when in fact the condition is Gender Dysphoria, which is a psychological condition as defined by the APA. The military has a right to dismiss members who are suffering from a psychological condition it deems incompatible with the duties and responsibilities as defined by the military service. The military is a collection of individuals who actually sacrifice individualism to be part of a collective. This is a completely different aspect than any other occupation or career. As such it will have different standards and demands to be met by each individual. Tannehill and his supporters would argue that this is a civil rights issue when it is not. This is why SCOTUS has allowed the military ban to continue because the lower courts have failed to show that this is a civil rights issue to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court.
27
@Mike
Your interpretation is incorrect.
The dysphoria is a result of being in the wrong body. Transgenders overcome any discomfort from this condition by adapting to the sex to which they belong.
The military has not determined that being transgender is "incompatible with the duties and responsibilities as defined by the military service." In fact, just the opposite.
Transgenders are not "suffering" at all — except from the disapprobation of some people in society, such as you.
This is a civil rights issue, pure and simple.
108
@Mike ... "The military is a collection of individuals who actually sacrifice individualism to be part of a collective. This is a completely different aspect than any other occupation or career."
Only in the military, huh? I sacrifice quite a bit of my own individualism to work in the engineering industry, to be a part of the team that pushes hard to meet deadlines for local and federal government projects where big money and project deadlines take full precedence over any individual. The job will never get done if someone has to "be an individual" and negatively impact the project.
Your statements smack of something else.
39
@Mike
Wouldn't gender dysphoria apply to a person who has not transitioned yet? This author seems to indicate that transition is complete, dysphoria is not present, and the soldier is fit to serve. Did you read the part where she was judged fit to serve? Under those conditions, do you still see some reason to exclude transgender persons from service? If so, on what possible basis? Just because?
I don't buy any of the moral and cohesiveness arguments. Those old tropes were the basis of racial and gender discrimination, and have been roundly proven to be utter nonsense. The soldiers unwilling to serve with their fellows are the problem, now the discriminated member.
49
If a PERSON wants to serve and meets requirements to serve, then they should be allowed to serve. They are no more of a problem to any of the services than are pregnant women, members with cancer, those with other diseases while not caused by service are routinely treated for many service members. These are people, human beings who have issues, most of us do, some more than others. If you rejected every person who applied to become a military member because they had a problem you would not have a military. I served as a nurse in the Navy, there were plenty of folks who had real issues, sex addictions, problems that required long term treatment, problems that required surgery(s), alcoholism, drug addiction, heart problems smoking related problems, no one told them they could not serve unless they could not physically do the work due to their problem. Time to treat all people equally, and if some one wants to serve, then let them. Instead of putting up barriers, help them attain the highest level of performance they can manage. I echo what another commenter said, tRump spent his youth getting out of military service other than marching and playing at a military school. He never served. While we probably ought to be glad he did not serve, it is obvious he is more than willing to condemn some, who want to serve, based on some random decision made by his base rather than decide based on real evidence about transgender people's abilities
71
I am sorry for what this means for you personally and what it means for the country. There is a reason McConnell refused to hold nomination hearings for Garland - this is the first of many regressive actions that will be taken by the current SC.
173
I'm a veteran who gladly welcomed gays, women, and non-citizen immigrants into my combat platoon in Iraq when the status of all three groups was questionable in the early 2000's. I've always cared more about ability to perform the mission than any of those things.
That said, I'm massively skeptical that any research on transgender troops isn't riddled with bias where the conclusion was determined first and the facts were forced to fit that thesis after. Why do I say this? Because the thought of even questioning any trans policy publicly would have me attacked and labeled transphobic. When I can ask this question honestly and as someone coming from a good place, then I'll trust that researchers won't have to fear releasing unpleasant results.
22
@Chris
Isn't there a difference between "questioning" a policy and "researching" a policy? The former assumes a policy already in place; the latter assumes no policy in place. Doesn't your complaint collapse these two separate actions? Why are you so sure that your questioning of "any" trans policy would result in you being attacked? Finally, who gets to determine when you can "ask this question honestly"?
7
@Doug Why am I so sure that questioning any trans policy would have me attacked? Researchers usually live on college campuses which are increasingly intolerant places nowadays. I guess that puts me in the camp of people who believe "political correctness" shuts down reasoned debate and silences free speech.
7
@Chris. I think your concern here is misguided. Yes, there have been problems with free thought on some college campuses at some times about some issues, but it is rather a stretch to assume that no researchers anywhere can work without bias. To be honest, it’s a bit insulting to highly trained and skilled professionals to blanketly accuse them of such shortcomings without anything to back your statements up except rather gross generalizations.
Please ask the question you have in mind; I will bet my eye teeth that it is a salient one, and that you will be taken seriously.
5
If a person changes sexual identity and thereby resolves all substantial psychological issues with respect to their identity, the change of identity is nobody's business and they should be allowed to serve in the military. If, on the other hand, serious psychological conflict persists, then the individual is not fit for the military. The bottom line issue isn't whether they're transgender. It is whether that causes and continues to cause debilitating psychological conflict.
15
@michjas
Exactly right, well said.
@michjas - OK but I cannot see the point of tax dollars satisfying their need for transitioning to another gender. What you do with your own self is not my business except when it comes to what I'll call "group progress". One may feel they are not what the general social milieu expects them to be. They are welcome to change. I am not automatically responsible for the furtherance of their desire to transition to a different gender.
1
I agree that being transgender should not be a reason to reject a person from serving in the arm forces.
I am not a constitutional lawyer but from what I believe the Constitution does not grantee the rights of a transgender person from being part of the military and if it doesn't then by not telling Trump what to do is not not protecting the rights of the Transgender.
If it's not in the constitution then the supreme court does not have the right to tell the President he is wrong.
Congress however can.
I see no reason the Democratic party can not make a law that demands that being transgender will be allowed in the military.
5
The reason the Democratic Party simply cannot reverse this ban is that the Senate remains in Republican hands, as does the White House.
11
@Reader
Yes but you can't assume all those Republicans agree with the President on this issue.
If all the Democrats believe the President is wrong than you need at most 10 of those Republicans to come to your side.
I see Transgender people as not being normal but no less human and should therefore be respected because of that and are no less able to do things like being a doctor or being a member of the military.
We are all individuals with different skills.
We should be judged on the skills we have and not on any other factors when it comes to issues that qualify us to function in society.
I believe most of the Republicans are not stupid and would see this and that there is no reason to exclude the transgender from being in the military because they are transgender.
Thank you for your service. Your courage is way beyond anything Trump or the conservatives on the SC could ever understand or muster up themselves. Hopefully this will be reversed in two years.
67
This court’s encouragement of policy with no foundation in evidence, scientific or otherwise should be of grave concern to us all.
The issue of policy founded entirely in fear and prejudice must be at the forefront of the discussion.
I appreciate the author drawing attention to the depth and breadth of research that went into the initial policy. As a nation when have we suffered as a result of working together? Can we point to historic moment where greater acceptance and unity were detrimental to our society?
62
@Chris
Maybe the question should be "Has our nation ever, quickly and without rancor, expanded acceptance and unity?" Progress--change--is ALWAYS achieved DESPITE the best efforts of scared, uninformed and prejudiced citizenry (and sometimes one or more government branches) to deny it.
6
I was born in 1963, so perhaps it's partly a generational gap, but as a veteran (served 1985-89) I can't wrap my mind around transgenders seamlessly "fitting in" to the military way of life. But, I have to also consider that I haven't heard of too many news-making events regarding conflicts around transgenders in the military. I have to admit that the younger generation is largely living with a different tolerance level than my generation. If it works without conflict, great I say! The world has changed and I accept that change.
68
@rd
I was born in 1943, and I have no problem with accepting all people for what they are.
The five conservatives on the Supreme Court have once more shown their contempt for the civil rights of the people.
46
@rd Your argument is identical to the ones made against integrating African Americans into the service -- "They won't fit in." "It will cause a disruption in discipline." "I will lower morale." What we lack in this administration is the leadership to demand that transgender recruits be treated fairly.
4
The military will probably permit transgender soldiers already in uniform to complete their service obligations. It will probably allow transgender solders on career tracks to continue their careers. The prohibitions will apply to future recruits.
The military knows some transgender service members serve with distinction, but it also knows that soldiers with gender dysphoria will generally experience more difficulty than soldiers without gender dysphoria. The military reject 80 percent of recruits, many for medical issues far less serious than gender dysphoria,.
The author acknowledges taking a break in active-duty service to coper medical issue associated with gender dysphoria. A year or two off to convalesce may not be much for a career officer such as the author, but it would be a lot for a four-year recruit.
21
@William Case
Gender dysphoria is a condition, but it is neither an illness nor a handicap.
It merely means that one is in the wrong body for one's sex. Becoming transgender is the solution, not the problem.
4
@William Case
So here's the question: If a soldier happens to be transexual AND serves without, as you say, gender dysphoria, why should anything but their performance of duty matter?
3
The opportunity to serve is being taken away from people who proudly serve, by a person who used wealth and privilege to avoid service during his time. Irony is no more...
541
@Basic, and a person who was too much of coward to serve when it was his time
3
@Basic
Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, classified in the DSM-5.
Should our military be concerned with granting people "the opportunity to serve," or on the traits that make someone a useful soldier?
Is the military in some staffing crisis that they need to start accepting the mentally ill?
3
@asdfj
Well, our current is the Commander in Chief. Need I say more?
1
I am a practicing Internal Medicine and Endocrinology physician and find this ban absolutely abhorrent. The medical community needs to come together and swiftly denounce this.
507
The medical community has already denounced the ban. Republicans don’t care. A policy motivated by animus will not be undone by reason.
127
@Dr. GF
I agree it's wrong but the medical community has no right to say it's wrong as the people who are for the ban are not justifying that ban on medical reasons.
6
@lucky
On the contrary.
We all have the right to say that the ban is wrong.
65