We ask you, humbly, to help us.
We hope you enjoy this web site and what it represents.
If so, fantastic!
The thing is ... we're an independent group of normal people who donate our time to bring you the content on this website. We hope that it makes a difference.
Over the past year, expenses related to the site upkeep (from research to delivery) has increased ... while available funds to keep things afloat have decreased. We would love to continue bringing you the content, but we desperately need your help through monetary donations. Anything would help, from a one-off to small monthly donations.
$3? $5? $15? The option is yours. Regardless, your help would be appreciated.
Please click HERE to be taken to our donation page. Thank you so much.
Bruce Robinson, Founder.
2017-JUL to 2018-JUN: Trump's memo. Response.
Public opinion polls.
Lawsuits filed. Cost.
Transgender individuals were able to
enlist on and after 2018-JAN-01. Trump
reinstates ban during 2018-MAR.
Image by Maiconfz. Downloaded from Pixabay. CC0 Creative Commons
2017-AUG-25: President Trump signed a memo that implements his new policy to discriminate against transgender service members. General Mattis responds:
The President's memo states that:
- No new transgender individuals will be allowed to join the Military unless and until the Secretary of Defense recommends otherwise.
- No new transgender individuals will be allowed to join the Coast Guard unless and until the Secretary of Homeland Security recommends otherwise.
- For transgender service members who are currently serving, the departments of Defense and Homeland Security will determine what to do with them based on how their continued service affects military effectiveness, lethality, resources and unit cohesion.
Effective 2018-MAR-23, sex confirmation surgery (formerly called sex change surgery) will be stopped, except for those service members currently being treated. 1
- Implementation plans are to be submitted to the President by 2018-MAR-25.
We believe that this is the first time in the history of the U.S. Armed Forces that discrimination against a group of potential service members was phased out and later restored. In the past, after the military terminated discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation, the changes were permanent.
Sarah McBride, National Press Secretary of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) said:
"It is an unconscionable and unconstitutional breach of trust for the president to single out brave transgender service members and able recruits for discrimination." 2
On AUG-28, two lawsuits were quickly filed to challenge the ban:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland filed a lawsuit "Stone v. Trump" in federal court on behalf of six transgender service members. It is based on the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees citizens due process and equal protection. This Amendment has been the basis of many past, successful, and major legal human rights challenges that have affecting minorities, including the legalizing of interracial marriages, the decriminalizing of consensual same-gender sexual behavior in private, and the legalizing of marriage by same-sex couples. 3
The ACLU claims that President Trump's transgender:
"... ban is based on uninformed speculation, myths and stereotypes, moral disapproval, and a bare desire to harm this already vulnerable group."
Josh Block, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, said:
"Each and every claim made by President Trump to justify this ban can be easily debunked by the conclusions drawn from the Department of Defense’s own review process. Allowing men and women who are transgender to serve openly and providing them with necessary health care does nothing to harm military readiness or unit cohesion. Men and women who are transgender with the courage and capacity to serve deserve more from their commander-in-chief. 4
Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington state on behalf of three persons and two other groups:
"... two individuals who seek to join the military; one current service member who seeks appointment as an officer; the Human Rights Campaign; ... and [the] Gender Justice League."
Peter Renn, Lambda Legal Senior Attorney said:
"This ban not only wrongfully prevents patriotic, talented Americans from serving, it also compromises the safety and security of our country. Thousands of current service members are transgender, and many have been serving openly, courageously and successfully in the U.S. military for more than a year -- not to mention the previous decades when many were forced to serve in silence. Once again attacking a vulnerable population based on bias, political opportunism and demonstrably untrue ‘alternative facts,’ President Trump is denying brave men and women the opportunity to serve our country without any legitimate justification whatsoever."
Plaintiff Staff Sergeant Catherine Schmid said:
"I love serving my country, which I’ve been doing for more than 12 years. Since the ban on open service by transgender men and women was lifted, I’ve been able to live and serve as my authentic self, which has allowed me to form stronger bonds with my fellow service members."
Peter Perkowski, Legal Director for OutServe-SLDN, said:
"We promised that we would sue if the president took this action. The law is on our side; justice is on our side. And we are on the side of every single transgender service member and those who want to serve. The nation’s courts exist to protect the people whom tyrants would otherwise abuse. Trump can’t tweet his way out of this one." 5
On AUG-29, General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, announced that he was setting up a panel of experts to study the ban and recommend how to implement it. He will then advise the President. He said:
"Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my advice to the president concerning implementation of his policy direction. In the interim, current policy with respect to currently serving members will remain in place." 6
His response appears ambiguous with regard to the scheduling of future gender confirmation surgery for transgender members of the Armed Forces and Coast Guard. Carlos Garcia, writing for The Blaze stated that:
"Secretary of Defense James Mattis issued a statement of implementation of President Trump's transgender ban that many believed actually undermined his order." 7
2017-OCT-31: A Federal District Judge invokes temporary injunction against President Trump's transgender directive:
District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly concluded that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit raised by GLAD and NCLR during August are likely to succeed. She issued a temporary injunction. Trump's directive cannot be enforced while the case is being heard in court. She wrote:
"As a form of government that classifies people based on their gender identity, and disfavors a class of persecuted and politically powerless individuals, the President’s directives are subject to a fairly searching form of scrutiny. ... The court finds that a number of factors—including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself — strongly suggest that Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious."
She noted that while the government’s arguments for dismissal of the request for an injunction are:
"... perhaps compelling in the abstract, [they] wither away under scrutiny. ... The memorandum unequivocally directs the military to prohibit indefinitely the accession of transgender individuals and to authorize their discharge. This decision has already been made. These directives must be executed by a date certain, and there is no reason to believe that they will not be executed. Plaintiffs have established that they will be injured by these directives, due both to the inherent inequality they impose, and the risk of discharge and denial of accession that they engender."
Referring to the military's 2016 study which led to allowing transgender persons to serve in the military, she said that the government's argument for the transgender ban:
"... appear to be hypothetical and extremely over broad. ... As far as the court is aware at this preliminary stage, all of the reasons proffered by the president for excluding transgender individuals from the military in this case were not merely unsupported, but were actually contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself."
Shannon Minter, NCLR’s legal director, issued a statement, saying:
"This is a complete victory for our plaintiffs and all transgender service members, who are now once again able to serve on equal terms and without the threat of being discharged."
Jennifer Levi, director of GLAD’s transgender rights project, issued a statement, saying:
"This court saw straight through the smokescreen the government tried to create to hide the bias and prejudice behind Trump’s change in military policy. This clear, powerful ruling confirms that there is no legitimate reason to exclude transgender people from military service. ... The President abruptly announced [the ruling], via Twitter -- without any of the formality or deliberative processes that generally accompany the development and announcement of major policy changes that will gravely affect the lives of many Americans -- that all transgender individuals would be precluded from participating in the military in any capacity. These circumstances provide additional support for plaintiffs’ claim that the decision to exclude transgender individuals was not driven by genuine concerns regarding military efficacy."
However, it wasn't a complete victory for transgender equality, because Judge Kollar-Kotelly left the ban on funding gender reassignment surgery intact.
Tony Perkins, who heads the conservative Family Research Center, said:
"This is where judicial activism is leading us. The courts have moved beyond legislating on the invented rights of abortion and same-sex marriage to clearly usurping the constitutional authority of the executive branch. The president has the primary task of protecting Americans, but we see the courts weakening his immigration policies designed to protect America from threats and now telling the commander-in-chief how to run the military." 8
2017: Estimates of the cost of allowing qualifying transgender individuals to serve in the military:
The total U.S. Department of Defense budget is expected to be $640 billion dollars. 9
At the top of this page, the text on a sign held by a pro-equality protestor said that the cost to the military is 0.001% of the total military spending.
The RAND analysis commissioned by the Department of Defense estimated between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually for the cost of gender confirmation surgery. That would be between .0003% and 0.001% of the total military spending.
- The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 estimated the cost at $4.2 million to $5.6 million. That would be between 0.0007 to 0.0009% of the total military spending.
These values seem to be more or less consistent. One can probably assume that the pro-equality protestor is correct: the medical cost of transgender surgery would be less than 0.001% of the total military spending.
Peter Sprigg writes for the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group that has been listed as an active anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 9,10 The Council computed a very different value, which included the cost of potential lost time of deployable service. They estimate values almost 100 times greater: U.S. $190 to 370 million per year (.03 to .06%). 11 That works out to $0.59 to $1.14 per year per person in the country, or $0.001% to $0.002% of the Gross Domestic Product per person. Not a large amount.
2017-NOV: Second federal judge rules against President Trump's transgender directive:
U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis of Baltimore, MD issued a second injunction against President Trump's ban on transgender military personnel. This was in response to a motion filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of six transgender plaintiffs. He noted that:
"demonstrated that they are already suffering harmful consequences. ... the cancellation and postponements of surgeries, the stigma of being set apart as inherently unfit, facing the prospect of discharge and inability to commission as an officer, the inability to move forward with long-term medical plans, and the threat to their prospects of obtaining long-term assignments. ... capricious, arbitrary, and unqualified tweet of new policy does not trump the methodical and systematic review by military stakeholders qualified to understand the ramifications of policy change." 12
Lauren Ehrsam, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice responded to the injunction, saying:
"(The) plaintiffs' lawsuit challenging military service requirements is premature for many reasons, including that the Defense Department is actively reviewing such service requirements, as the President ordered, and because none of the plaintiffs have established that they will be impacted by current policies on military service." 12
Lambda Legal and Outserve-SLDN have filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Seattle, WA. 13
2017-DEC-11: Department of Defense announces transgender individuals can apply to enlist starting on 2018-JAN-01:
The Department of Justice asked federal U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington to lift part of her Oct. 30 injunction. She had ruled that President Trump's ban on transgender service members is likely unconstitutional. That is because it appears to violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law for all citizens. Her injunction had temporarily halted President Trump's ban on transgender applicants to the military from taking effect until sometime in the future when the case is fully resolved by the courts.
The Department argued that to start enlisting transgender service members on JAN-01 would be problematic. Applicants would have to be disqualified from enlisting if they had had sex confirmation or genital reconstruction survey within the previous 18 months, unless a medical provider had certified that no complications persisted and additional surgeries were not required. Apparently, it would be too difficult to train tens of thousands of Defense Department recruiting personnel in time, to administer this simple requirement.
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected the Defense Department's argument. She said:
"The directive from the Secretary of Defense requiring the military to prepare to begin allowing accession of transgender individuals was issued on June 30, 2016 - nearly one and a half years ago." 14
The White House said that they and the Department of Justice were reviewing their options. The Department of Defense announced that transgender individuals will be able to apply on and after JAN-01.
Meanwhile, another federal judge in Seattle, WA also ordered that the President's ban be terminated.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, issued a statement saying that:
The military has studied this issue extensively and determined that permitting qualified transgender people to enlist and serve will only strengthen our nation's armed forces. This administration's claim that allowing transgender people to enlist will lessen military preparedness is contradicted by the military's own conclusions." 15
2018-JAN: Recruits start to enlist in the military in spite of the uncertainty:
Following court orders by federal judges in Baltimore and Washington, the Defense Department started to accept new transgender recruits at the beginning of January. Logan Downs, 23 is a transgender man from Oregon. He was born female and now identifies as male. He decided to proceeding with enlistment even though there is uncertainty whether he will be accepted. He said: "I'm not worried." 17
There have been two negative factors that have been raised in opposition to transgender recruits:
The cost: A Rand Corporation study found that the total cost of healthcare for transgender service members will be a miniscule addition to the $50 billion Defense Department healthcare budget: $2.4 to 8.4 million or less than 0.02% of the total budget.
The concern over unit cohesion/operational effectiveness: The same study found that in the 18 other countries who permitted transgender recruits, including Australia, Canada, Israel, the UK, etc., there was little or no detectable impact.
Nicolas Bade, 37, a transgender male enlistee from Chicago said:
"The people I know in the military have said, 'I don’t care what your gender identity is, as long as you can do your job'." 17
2018-MAR-23: President Trump's earlier ban on military transgender persons is modified:
The White House released a statement during the evening of MAR-23, saying:
"Today the President rescinded his previous memorandum on transgender service in the military in order to allow Secretary Mattis' new policy developed through extensive study by senior uniformed and civilian leaders including combat veterans.
The experts’ study set forth a policy to enhance our military’s readiness, lethality, and and effectiveness. On the advice of these experts, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security have concluded that the accession or retention of individuals with a history of diagnosis of gender dysphoria -- those who may require substantial medical treatment, including through medical drugs or surgery -- presents considerable risk to military effectiveness and lethality.”
This new policy will enable the military to apply well-established mental and physical health standards -- including those regarding the use of medical drugs -- equally to all individuals who want to join and ... [serve] for the best military force the world has ever seen. The Secretary of Defense’s memorandum and accompanying report have been made public today. 18
This statement appears ambiguous. It could be interpreted as banning all of those transgender persons who might "require substantial medical treatment," but as allowing transgender persons to serve if they are not currently suffering from gender dysphoria. But it might also be interpreted as banning essentially all transgender persons from the military if they had suffered gender dysphoria at any time in their past.
The American Psychiatric Association defines gender dysphoria as:
"In adolescents and adults gender dysphoria diagnosis involves a difference between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, and significant distress or problems functioning. It lasts at least six months and is shown by at least two of the following:
- A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
- A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
- A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
- A strong desire to be of the other gender
- A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender 19 [Emphasis not in the original text.]
Note that a person who currently identifies themselves as having a gender different from their biological sex does not necessarily suffer gender dysphoria. They may have received counseling, hormone treatments, and gender confirmation surgery and now be comfortable with their gender identity.
According to a CNN video, President Trump tweeted three joined tweets. It seems to ban all transgender individuals, whether they currently suffer -- or have suffered in the past -- from gender dysphoria:
"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victor and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender [persons] in the military would entail. Thank you." 18
Hopefully, the conflict between the White House's statement and the President's tweets will be cleared up quickly, so that transgender persons in the military and those wishing to enlist will soon know exactly where they stand.
More court challenges are inevitable.
Also on MAR-23, Nanci Pelosi, leader of the Democratic Party in the U.S. House of Representatives, tweeted:
"No one with the strength & bravery to serve in the U.S. military should be turned away because of who they are. This hateful ban is purpose-built to humiliate our brave transgender members of the military who serve with honor & dignity." 20
Retired Lieutenant General Tom Spoehr, of the Heritage Foundation, believes that the Pentagon should be allowed to make exceptions for soldiers who are already-serving in the Military. He also said:
"The armed forces are not a petri dish for social experimentation, nor is military service a guaranteed right. Our military is the first line of defense for America’s own unique experiment in liberty."
According to the Los Angeles Times, the order will have "no immediate impact" because four federal district judges have issued injunctions in the recent past blocking implementation of a transgender ban.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had ruled:
"It must be remembered [that the transgender individuals who went to court to seek] to serve their nation with honor and dignity, volunteering to face extreme hardships, to endure lengthy deployments and separation from family and friends and to willingly make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives if necessary."
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights described the new policy as:
"... exactly the discriminatory, categorical ban that four federal courts have already barred from going forward."
Matt Thorn, president of OutServe-SLDN, said:
"This policy is a thinly veiled and feeble attempt by the Trump-Pence administration to justify the unnecessary discrimination of qualified patriots in order to advance their own personal agendas and in defiance of the administration's top military leadership. This plan is riddled with blatant animus, bigotry, and ignorance but conveniently void of any foundational bases or facts."
Hearings resume on MAR-27 before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Jennifer Levi, director of the transgender rights project at the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders group said that the new order:
"... categorically bans transgender people from service, with no legitimate basis. This policy deems [all] transgender people unfit for service. It's basically an absolute ban. We will continue to challenge this because there is no military justification for it. And I expect ultimately this will be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court." 21
2018-APR-04: Various national medical groups criticize the military's transgender ban:
Dr. James L. Madera, CEO of the American Medical Association (AMA) sent a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis, stating:
"We believe there is no medically valid reason — including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria — to exclude transgender individuals from military service. Transgender individuals have served, and continue to serve, our country with honor, and we believe they should be allowed to continue doing so." 22
Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, of the American Psychological Association, which has a membership of over 115,000 professionals, sent a letter stating:
"The American Psychological Association is alarmed by the administration’s misuse of psychological science to stigmatize transgender Americans and justify limiting their ability to serve in uniform and access medically necessary health care.
Substantial psychological research shows that gender dysphoria is a treatable condition, and does not, by itself, limit the ability of individuals to function well and excel in their work, including in military service. The science is clear that individuals who are adequately treated for gender dysphoria should not be considered mentally unstable. Additionally, the incidence of gender dysphoria is extremely low.
No scientific evidence has shown that allowing transgender people to serve in the armed forces has an adverse impact on readiness or unit cohesion. What research does show is that discrimination and stigma undermine morale and readiness by creating a significant source of stress for sexual minorities that can harm their health and well-being.
APA’s governing Council of Representatives adopted a resolution in 2008 supporting full equality for transgender and gender-variant people and calling for legal and social recognition of transgender individuals. ..." 23
Back in mid-2017, President-Elect Altha Stewart, M.D. announced the opposition of the American Psychiatric Association, to the banning of transgender persons from the military. The announcement read, in part:
"The APA stands firmly against discrimination against anyone. ... Banning transgender service members from serving our country harms not just those transgender Americans who have dedicated themselves to service of others, but it unfairly casts a pall over all transgender Americans. Discrimination has a negative impact on the mental health of those targeted.”
The APA in 2012 passed a policy statement that opposed discrimination against transgender people and called for their civil rights to be protected. Transgender people do not have a mental disorder; thus, they suffer no impairment whatsoever in their judgment or ability to work.
'Our stand in support of transgender military members is rooted in our policies against discrimination in all forms,' said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A.'We firmly believe the world should be more inclusive. We are encouraged by Joints Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford’s statement that there are no modifications to the current policy and we call upon Defense Secretary Mattis to allow transgender service members to continue to serve in the military." 24
2018-JUN-15: CNN features a FTM transgender person for Father's Day:
Sabastion Sparks, a transgender man who was identified as female at birth, is married to Angel Sparks, a transgender woman who was identified as male at birth. Both temporarily suspended their hormone treatments in order that Sabastion could get pregnant. He later gave birth to their son, Jaxen. A CNN tweet featured Sabastion in their Father's Day article with the sub-title: "He gave birth. He breastfed, Now he wasts his son to see him as a man."
Some conservatives responded negatively:
The core problem causing the conservative-liberal/medical conflict over transgender persons is that a man's gender can be defined in three ways:
- by the appearance of their genital "parts;"
- by internal brain structures which typically come in male or female sizes and neuron densities, and
- by the presence of a Y sex chromosome in their DNA.
This works well for over 99% of humans. However, transsexuals like Sebastion typically have female genital parts, XX (female) sex chromosomes in their DNA, and male internal brain structures that cause his belief that he is a male. So, he became pregnant, delivered and breastfed a child, identifies himself as male, and wants his son to treat him as a man. Since conservatives generally consider that a person's genital parts completely define their gender to the exclusion of the two other factors, they consider Sebastion to be a female. Sebastion himself and most liberals consider him to be male.
There is no obvious method to resolve this conflict, unless conservatives adopt the scientific/medical concepts of gender. Since there is no noticable dialog on this matter at the present time, the change may take a few decades. In the meantime, the high (over 40%) attempted suicide rate of transgender persons, which is partly caused by a lack of acceptance of transgender persons, will probably remain very high for a long time. Pity.
Previous articles in this series on transgender persons in the U.S. military:
Part 1: 2011/2012: Overview. Support. Current military policies. Care for veterans.
Part 2: 2016: Previous ends to discrimination by the military. Pentagon announces an end to discrimination against transgender members. Negative reactions.
Part 3: 2016: More negative reactions to the ending of discrimination. Positive reactions.
Part 4: 2016: President Trump's ban on transgender persons in the military.
Part 5: 2017: Trump bans transgender military service members via tweets. Federal court blocks the move.
Part 6: 2017-JUL/AUG: Impact on Trump's Ban of Transgender Military Service members.
Public opinion polls.
A helpful list:
The Toronto Star has a list of false claims made by President Trump. At the end of his first six months in office, the list totals 447 false claims. They average 2.4 per day. At this rate he will accumulate over 3,500 false claims by the end of his first term in office. Daniel Dale, writing for the Star, commented:
"... Trump has proven uniquely willing to lie, exaggerate and mislead. By all expert accounts, he is more frequently inaccurate than any of his predecessors." 16
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
Gordon Lubold, "White House Sets Rules for Military Transgender Ban," The Wall Street Journal, 2017-AUG-23, at: https://www.wsj.com/
Merrit Kennedy, "2 Lawsuits Challenge Trump's Ban On Transgender Military Service," NPR, 2017-AUG-28, at: http://www.npr.org/
"ACLU sues Trump over transgender military ban," Associated Press, 2017-AUG-28, at: http://www.latimes.com/
"ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Transgender Service Member Ban," ACLU, 2017-AUG-28, at: https://www.aclu.org/
"HRC Represented By Lambda Legal & OutServe-SLDN in Lawsuit Against Trump’s Trans Military Ban," Human Rights Campaign, 2017-AUG-28, at: https://www.hrc.org/
Tom Vanden Brook, "Mattis freezes transgender policy; allows troops to continue serving, pending study," USA Today, 2017-AUG-29, at: https://www.usatoday.com/
Carlos Garcia, "Defense Secretary Mattis halts Trump’s transgender ban until this happens." The Blaze, 2017-AUG-29, at: http://www.theblaze.com/
Claire Chretien, " 'Judicial activism': Judge blocks Trump’s ban on transgenders in the military," Life Site News, 2017-OCT-31, at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/
"Intelligence Files: Family Research Council," Southern Poverty Law Center, 2013, at: http://www.splcenter.org/
"Intelligence Report, "18 anti-gay groups and their propaganda," Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2010, Issue #140, at: http://www.splcenter.org
Peter Sprigg, "Transgender Policy Could Cost Military Billions Over Ten Years," Family Research Council, 2017-JUL, at: http://www.frc.org/
Lisa Bourne, "Federal judge blasts Trump’s transgender military ban: ‘capricious, arbitrary’," Life Site News, 2017-NOV-23, at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/
Hana Kim, "Suit filed in federal court in Seattle against Trump’s transgender military ban," Fox News, 2017-AUG-28, at: http://q13fox.com/
Andrew Chung & Idrees Ali, "U.S. military must accept transgender recruits by Jan. 1, judge rules," Reuters, 2017-DEC-11 at: https://www.reuters.com/
Tom Strode, "Transgenders to enlist as Trump appeal continues," Baptist Press, 2017-DEC-12, at: http://bpnews.net/
Daniel Dale, "Donald Trump just had his most dishonest week as president: 7 days, 34 false claims," Toronto Star, 2017-JUL-27, at: https://www.thestar.com/
Chris Kenning, "Transgender U.S. military recruits enlist amid uncertainty," Reuters, 2018-JAN-14, at: https://www.reuters.com
Carlos Garcia, "Trump issues major decision on transgender members in the military," The Blaze, 2018-MAR-23, at: https://www.theblaze.com/
Ranna Parekh, "What Is Gender Dysphoria?," American Psychiatric Association, 2016-FEB, at: https://www.psychiatry.org/
Nanci Pelosi, Twitter text, 2018-MAR-23, at: https://twitter.com/
David S. Cloud
& David G. Savage "Trump order would ban most transgender troops from serving, setting stage for court battle," LA Times, 2018-MAR-24, at: http://www.latimes.com/
Jana Pruet, "AMA claims there’s ‘no medically valid reason’ to exclude transgender people from military service," The Blaze, 2018-APR-04, at: https://www.theblaze.com/
"APA Statement Regarding Transgender Individuals Serving in Military," American Psychological Association, 2018-MAR-26, at: http://www.apa.org/
"APA Opposes Banning Transgender Service Members from Serving in Military," 2017-JUL-27, at: https://www.psychiatry.org/
How you may have arrived here:
Copyright © 2017 & 2018 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update : 2018-JUN-17, Father's Day
Author: B.A. Robinson