December 12, 2017

Pentagon Announces Transgender People Can Serve In Military

Rebel Staff

The Pentagon announced Monday that beginning on January 1, 2018, transgender people will be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. 

The new policy reflects growing legal pressure on the issue, and the difficult hurdles the federal government would have to cross to enforce Trump's demand to ban transgender individuals from the military. Two federal courts already have ruled against the ban. Potential transgender recruits will have to overcome a lengthy and strict set of physical, medical and mental conditions that make it possible, though difficult, for them to join the armed services.

Maj. David Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, says the enlistment of transgender recruits will start Jan. 1 and go on amid the legal battles. The Defense Department also is studying the issue. 

Eastburn told The Associated Press on Monday that the new guidelines mean the Pentagon can disqualify potential recruits with gender dysphoria, a history of medical treatments associated with gender transition and those who underwent reconstruction. But such recruits are allowed in if a medical provider certifies they've been clinically stable in the preferred sex for 18 months and are free of significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas.

Transgender individuals receiving hormone therapy also must be stable on their medication for 18 months.

The requirements make it challenging for a transgender recruit to pass. But they mirror concerns President Barack Obama's administration laid out when the Pentagon initially lifted its ban on transgender service last year.  

The Pentagon has similar restrictions for recruits with a variety of medical or mental conditions, such as bipolar disorder.

"Due to the complexity of this new medical standard, trained medical officers will perform a medical prescreen of transgender applicants for military service who otherwise meet all applicable applicant standards," Eastburn said.

The left has tried to use Trump's transgender-military stance to make him look like a hateful bigot, but that's never what this ban was about. In reality, Trump was simply trying to save taxpayers' money, as Americans were facing being forced to foot the bill for gender reassignment surgeries for transgender people in the military

 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-12-13 12:20:32 -0500
Drew Wakariuk—There may not be a lot of trans etc., however when you are storming the shores of a Hostile Nation and the 6’4 soldier beside you stops to change his pad, the distraction of the surprise may cost lives.
commented 2017-12-13 11:16:55 -0500
Al Peterson, I see what you are saying, and, I believe gender dysphoria should disqualify a person… I didn’t see a problem with Trump’s ban, and, it looks like the judiciary is saying it cannot be enforced. Now, there has to be a system in place to deal with this.
I don’t believe the military should be used as a social experiment, those pushing the transgender agenda are doing this very methodically.
commented 2017-12-13 10:22:07 -0500
TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT commented 18 hours ago
The person should also undergo psychological testing every six months to determine if that “stable” status still applies, and, if additional psychiatric problems have surfaced.
-—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Tammy, I have to disagree. The mentally unstable should not be in the military at all. This is more of the same nonsense as allowing ,muslims into he country but then putting up security barriers to prevent an attack. IF there is enough concern to test them it is enough cons cern to disqualify them.
commented 2017-12-13 02:13:07 -0500
Ron Jospeh there is not enough of them to make much of a difference.
commented 2017-12-13 02:12:33 -0500
Fine with this, as long as they meet the standards, no SPECIAL treatment.
commented 2017-12-12 20:41:16 -0500
The answer is, just look at the soldiers of your possible enemies.
For example: If the Russians were trying to take Alaska from the US, would they have Women in the front line invasion force?
If Iran was attacking France, would they have Trans-soldiers in their front line invading force?
In both cases the West better have their best, defending their homeland as the enemy is throwing their best at you.
commented 2017-12-12 18:05:14 -0500
It makes no sense. Defense isn’t a social experiment. Look around at any other major fighting force in the world, see any trannies? Trans should be excluded from any front line activity if they must be allowed to enlist and women should have their own units away from men like the Kurdish female fighters for example. Women can carry other women, women can’t necessarily carry other men. Lets just leave it at that. I think it makes for an unnecessary addition and distraction to an already dangerous environment. The taxpayer paying for transition should be out of the question.
Agreed Tammie, regular and thorough testing to make sure they remain mentally stable should be a prerequisite.
commented 2017-12-12 16:19:27 -0500
The person should also undergo psychological testing every six months to determine if that “stable” status still applies, and, if additional psychiatric problems have surfaced.
The tax payer is in no way responsible for subsidizing surgeries etc…it was ridiculous to even consider it in the first place, another Obama failure.
commented 2017-12-12 14:03:57 -0500
There must be standards. For example, were I to apply for the military now, I would be declined because of age. That is reality! Does a country want a daycare or a strong and effective deterrent against it’s enemies?