Timing...
This is the anniversary of the date that Truman signed the executive order desegregating the military.
Trump tweeted this while the Secretary of Defense was on vacation. So not only did the DOD not know, the Sec. of Def. didn't have anything to do with it either.
Or maybe the timing was just random, like most of his rage tweets.

I guess we just have to wait and see what this actually means, considering how there has been nothing legally binding, and the DoD seems to have no idea this was coming. Luckily tweets are not legally binding

Is it a blanket ban? A ban on just combat roles? Is it retro active? When does it take effect? How will this be handled for trans individuals who are currently in combat roles, or otherwise overseas?

Questions like these are typically handled by the Pentagon coming out with a briefing right after the announcement. Which is why these types of things are supposed to be at least discussed with Pentagon officials.

Yeah, the mouth-breathers will eat this up. This is what constitutes ideological "victory" in Trumplandia: discriminating against U.S. citizens ready, able, and willing to not only serve and die for their country, but to fight for the right of their fellow citizens to hate them.

Yes, let's talk about "financial burdens on the military":

WASHINGTON — An increase in the number of overweight and out-of-shape service members who are unable to run long distances or perform physical tasks like push-ups poses a direct threat to the United States’ ability to defend itself, a group of retired military leaders fighting for improved childhood nutrition said Wednesday.

The group, called Mission: Readiness, released a report that found that about 12 percent of active-duty service members were obese based on height and weight, a number that has risen 61 percent since 2002. The report said the extra weight cost the military about $1.5 billion annually in health care spending, as well as the expenses of replacing unfit soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen. Service members who are out of shape are unlikely to be able to carry heavy equipment or engage in the prolonged physical activity needed in combat, members of the group said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us/po…

From Stonewall, an uprising against armed aggression of agents of state coercion, to demanding the right to BE agents of state coercion; to inflict aggression on its current targets. This is what "liberation" means now; equal opportunity to kill and destroy in the service of empire?

So does this mean gays and lesbians can serve in the military but trans women and men cannot?

There is no reason we should lose this battle, while we win the war, Dan. It has nothing to do with the 53% either. Hillary Clinton won an overwhelming plurality of the overall votes, but she didn't win the election. The same thing could happen here, as East and West Coast voters overwhelmingly favor LGBTQ rights, and other areas don't.

No, it has everything to do with the way this is being done. Unlike the gays in the military battle, military leaders aren't in lockstep with the conservative leaders. They basically don't give a shit. It is a minor issue, and if they find someone special (say, a translator who speaks in several Arabic dialects) they could care less what is between their legs. Even for the regular grunts, the brass is happy if they are in decent shape coming into boot camp.

Which is how the Democrats should frame this. It is pretty easy, really. Here is a typical talking point:

"If the military brass is OK with transgender people serving, I'm OK with them serving. I agree with Senator McCain, Trump overstepped this expertise. Trump never served, and has no idea what he is doing with regards to the military (or anything else for that matter"

A few will take a more forceful stand (like Biden) but there is no reason why someone in a tough race has to put his ass out there or duck the question. They can attack Trump on process (and stand behind conservative as fuck Republicans like Hatch) while saying something vague about the general issue. I recommend saying that their opinion is "evolving".

@5: being allowed to serve in the military is not aggression, unless trans existence is a threat.

@5: Liberation is always having a choice, numbnuts.

Shorter: Republicans will kill people to gain more political power.

It's basically more flak... a distraction designed to (1) reinforce support from Trumpistas who don't understand "transqueers", (2) eat up the (liberal media) news cycle, while Congress continues the work of handing healthcare to corporate control, or whatever Pruitt or Kobach or Tillerson are doing to dismantle the government , (3) rile "libtards" and put progressive Dems on the defensive, and finally (4) inflame intragroup hatreds (as a basic divide & conquer tactic), much like Putin & the Duma did against LGBT in Russia, which led to off-duty military types physically beating the shit out of gays on public streets.

We will see anti-trans violence occur because of this.

Goddamn. Fuck this, the most corporate presidency yet...

It certainly smells like a Bannon move.

What the fuck is with this Parker Molloy break down of trans people's medical costs vs boner pills? Is basic math not en vogue anymore?

2 mil people in the military including reserves.

Hundreds (let's say 900 and be generous) of trans soldiers currently serving.

With simple math I can calculate that boner pills are averaging about 42 dollars per soldier ( not excluding women, granted). So if half the military was women, which it's not, 84 dollars per soldier.

Now divide the median of 2.4-8.4 mill (say 5 million) by the generous number of 900 and you have about $5555.00 per trans person for medical costs.

That's not to say that that cost isn't what it costs to take care of every soldier, that's not clarified. But if I assume 5555.00 is what it costs to keep trans people in hormones and take care of their trans specific medical needs I would say the boner pills look like a hell of a deal in comparison.

This is all about distraction on the part of the Trumpists. And they are brilliant at doing this. They just keep throwing shit all over the place and no one in the media knows what to report on or talk about.

Dan, you might want to retract that bit of idiocy. There's plenty of reasons for trans people to be included in service to the military, but that ain't one of them.

Remember when morons say there was no difference between Republicans in Democrats?

HAHAHAHAHA.

Yeah.

Like @14 said, if we're going to worry about the cost of providing a particular medical procedure (and at some point we do have to do this), then it only makes sense to look at this on a per capita basis.

After all, when you factor in what the entire nation spends on Tylenol and Sudafed, it's easy to make the common cold look like health catastrophe. And that would be totally misleading.

What is interesting is the timestamps on Trump's tweets. Between the first one and the second that finally spelled out that he was on about transgender servicemembers, about nine minutes elapsed. Apparently there was real concern at the Pentagon that he was in the process of tweeting out a declaration of war on North Korea.

@14, @19: the costs of having transgender people serve openly, including potential medical costs, were assessed on behalf of the military in a Rand report last year

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_report…

No new report contradicting this seems to have been commissioned before the tweet announcement.

DoD transgender policy https://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Rep… has not been changed, either.