Avatar feed
Responses: 12
LTC Psychological Operations Officer
5
5
0
Edited >1 y ago
The article's title is sort of misleading. It makes it sound that Mattis took an action to freeze the ban pending the review, and makes it seem that the ban would have affected current soldiers unless he did that. But Actually, the president's memo to Mattis directed that nothing change with current soldiers as to their status until the president reviews the implementation plan that Trump directed Mattis to develop.
Here's the wording from the memo.

" As part of the implementation plan, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall determine how to address transgender individuals currently serving in the United States military. Until the Secretary has made that determination, no action may be taken against such individuals under the policy set forth in section 1(b) of this memorandum."
(5)
Comment
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Cpl Jeff N.
>1 y
Hey, we agree. Place tick mark in column.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Tou Lee Yang
Cpl Tou Lee Yang
>1 y
You failed to give the details of "section 1(b)".

"(b)  Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States under the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including Article II of the Constitution, I am directing the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the U.S. Coast Guard, to return to the longstanding policy and practice on military service by transgender individuals that was in place prior to June 2016 until such time as a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that terminating that policy and practice would not have the negative effects discussed above.  The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may advise me at any time, in writing, that a change to this policy is warranted."

Prior to June 2016, transgender were not allowed to openly served in the military as gay was since 2011. So from my interpretation, transgender would be banned unless a study would indicate that it would be detrimental to the military's ability to operate efficiently. This would mean, a complete banned on transgender until a research is conducted and a finding that transgender would not impede military operation.

So if the research finds that transgender serving is detrimental to military readiness, the banned is justify and it will be perpetuated. However, if the research finds that transgender serving in the military has no impact than the banned would be lifted.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Psychological Operations Officer
LTC (Join to see)
>1 y
Cpl Tou Lee Yang - it's actually two different aspects related to studying the situation. The first is that the potus ordered a return to the old policy of no transgender soldiers allowed to serve. He then directed the secdef to develop an implementation plan to implement that decision. That plan is to include the secdef recommendation on what to do with current active duty transgender soldiers. That is due in Feb 2018. So that implementation plan is what Mattis is now bringing the experts together to develop.

A separate issue is that Trump says that if anytime in the future the secdef believes that allowing transgender troops to serve will not impact the military in any of the categories Trump listed, then he can go to Trump and recommend that the ban be dropped in total. But that's a separate thing from the plan the secdef owes the potus on how to reimplement the ban.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Tou Lee Yang
Cpl Tou Lee Yang
>1 y
LTC (Join to see) - So basically it is a banned on those people (transgender) who want to join, except it won't kick those currently in, out. However, that does not mean it won't happen, since before 2016, transgender are not allowed to openly served in the arm forces.

Mattis said nothing will change which basically undermines that memorandum you stated.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Trevor S.
2
2
0
While I support most of his agenda, there are bound to be points I disagree with. This is one of them.
(2)
Comment
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
>1 y
Supporting the agenda and supporting the man are two separate things
(2)
Reply
(0)
MSG Mark Million
MSG Mark Million
>1 y
I don't believe it's possible to agree 100% with every part of another persons political beliefs, all you can do is stick to the ones that most closely align with your own beliefs.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Don Bigger
1
1
0
I'm sure all three of the conservative 'snowflakes' on RP appreciate that.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MAJ Bryan Zeski
>1 y
While I hate people using the term "snowflake" derogatorily, I understand his sentiment. I've often found that, when posting to RP, if I use a non-Fox News source, the initial reaction to the story is "FAKE NEWS" or something along those lines. Some people only recognize their personal news site as reality - so, sometimes you have to go there to get people to come to the table and have a discussion.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close