A small victory

A word from our sponsor:

The Breast Form Store Little Imperfections Big Rewards Sale Banner Ad (Save up to 50% off)
Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Caution: 

Blog About: 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

IMG_2433.jpeg

Caution: TOPICAL

Friends, I don’t often blog about politics. But I am writing about a victory, however transitory and ephemeral it may be, on the subject of transgender bans in the military. It’s the subject of one of my stories (Sundown), and I feel pretty strongly about it. Judge Reyes’ clear, forceful opinion enjoining enforcement of Secretary Hegseth’s version of the Trans ban is well-reasoned, well written, and cuts through all the crap. I wanted to share some key paragraphs with you. Take joy where we can!

Emma

~o~O~o~

The President has the power—indeed the obligation—to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving. “[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order.” First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Renewed Application for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 72 (App.). Plaintiffs, who are transgender, claim that EO14183 and the Hegseth Policy (together, the Military Ban) treats them as today’s “fill in the blank” group. Seeking nothing more than to serve their country, they ask the Court to enjoin the Military Ban. App. at 26. They claim that the Hegseth Policy was rushed and reached a preordained result, contains no analysis, and has an exemption in name only. Id. at 56. The Ban at bottom invokes derogatory language to target a vulnerable group in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 29, 35–37; see U.S. Const. amend. V.

Not at all, say Defendants. They assert that the Military Ban is necessary because transgender persons undermine “military readiness” and disrupt “[u]nit cohesion, good order, and discipline.” Dkt. 81 (Opp.) at 40–54. Being transgender is “inconsistent” with “high standards for Service member readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” Hegseth Policy at 3. Gender ideology activists are “unconcerned with the requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion.” EO14183 § 1. Transgender persons cannot maintain “an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” Id. Their expression of sexual identity “is not consistent with [] humility and selflessness.” Id. They also cost too much. Opp. at 49.

Plaintiffs beg to differ. And differ they can. Together they have provided over 130 years of military service. They have served in roles ranging from Senior Military Science Instructor to Artillery Platoon Commander to Intelligence Analyst to Satellite Operator to Operations Research Analyst to Naval Flight Officer to Weapons Officer. They have deployed around the globe, from Afghanistan to Poland to Korea to Iraq to Kuwait to the USS Ronald Reagan and USS George W. Bush. One is presently deployed to an active combat zone. They have earned more than 80 commendations including: a Bronze Star; two Global War on Terrorism Service Medals; two Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medals; numerous Meritorious Service Medals; numerous Commendation Medals; Air and Space Outstanding Unit Awards; and the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, among many others.

* * * *
Transgender persons have served openly since 2021, but Defendants have not analyzed their service. That is unfortunate. Plaintiffs’ service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence. Defendants agree. They agree that Plaintiffs are mentally and physically fit to serve, have “served honorably,” and “have satisfied the rigorous standards” demanded of them. Tr. (Feb. 18, 2025) at 9–14, 148; see also Tr. (Mar. 12, 2025) at 130. Plaintiffs, they acknowledge, have “made America safer.” Tr. (Feb. 18, 2025) at 10. So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers? Crickets from Defendants on this key question.

Talbot v. United States, No. 25-cv-00240 (D.D.C., Mar. 18, 2025) (ACR).

Click Like or Love to appropriately show your appreciation for this post: