I think peashooter is questioning whether it can be legally justified. Operational difficulties are a serious concern but the question still remains of whether it can be legally justified.

It's a pre-existing medical and psychological condition, no different than any other pre-existing conditions over which the military rejects recruits.  Diabetes can be managed with diet, weight control, and medications, but the military rejects diabetics.

There's nothing about being Transgender that is different than Gays in the military.  "Don't ask, Don't Tell" won't work when their birth certificates say one thing, and they identify as the opposite gender.

Then there is the security clearance issue.  Anything in a person's background they don't want disclosed publicly can be used as leverage by a foreign agent. 

Plenty of precedence for the DoD to exclude them LEGALLY.

Operational difficulties are a serious concern but the question still remains of whether it can be legally justified.

If true, your concern for legalities and ignoring the safety, morale, and welfare of the troops tells me more about you than I really want to know.

I had to serve under politicians concerned about legalities.  Micromanaged ROE, etc.  50,000+  of my brothers died, many of them needlessly due to "legalities"

Do not shoot back, unknown if friendlies in the area.

Operational difficulties are a serious concern

  Excuse the F out of me, if your ass is in the grass, what the F else is there?

If true, your concern for legalities and ignoring the safety, morale, and welfare of the troops tells me more about you than I really want to know.
I had to serve under politicians concerned about legalities.  Micromanaged ROE, etc.  50,000+  of my brothers died, many of them needlessly due to "legalities"
Do not shoot back, unknown if friendlies in the area.

The decision should to be justified beyond just someone saying "we don't know if group X can handle the stress." Nowhere did I say we should ignore safety nor did I even imply such, don't over reach in my comments.

  Excuse the F out of me, if your ass is in the grass, what the F else is there?

We have this little thing called a constitution.

The decision should to be justified beyond just someone saying "we don't know if group X can handle the stress." Nowhere did I say we should ignore safety nor did I even imply such, don't over reach in my comments.

We have this little thing called a constitution.

Please cite the portion of the Constitution which says the people have a right to serve in the military without discrimination based on medical or psychological standards. 

Then show me where it says the Pentagon and White House can't decide those standards on their own without public input.

Please cite the portion of the Constitution which says the people have a right to serve in the military without discrimination based on medical or psychological standards. 

Then show me where it says the Pentagon and White House can't decide those standards on their own without public input.

Medical standards can be made but they cannot just be arbitrary, someone has to justify that the medical condition would create a problem.

People used to think that flat footed people couldn't be soldiers and they used to think black soldiers couldn't fight together with white soldiers.

The case has to be made that transgender people create too much of a problem to be in the military. I didn't say they have to have public input. .

Medical standards can be made but they cannot just be arbitrary, someone has to justify that the medical condition would create a problem.

People used to think that flat footed people couldn't be soldiers and they used to think black soldiers couldn't fight together with white soldiers.

The case has to be made that transgender people create too much of a problem to be in the military. I didn't say they have to have public input. .

You totally ignored the question.

WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY WHAT YOU JUST SAID???  You made it a point by bringing the Constitution into this discussion.  Show me which part you are referring to....

We have this little thing called a constitution.

Would that be the 14th and the 5th ? (The 5th via Bolling v. Sharpe)

Equal protection and due process ?

They didn't even kick Klinger out. 

Would that be the 14th and the 5th ? (The 5th via Bolling v. Sharpe)

Equal protection and due process ?

They didn't even kick Klinger out. 

Are you speaking for EEF now?

I'm sure you two think alike, but please let him answer for himself instead of trying to stir the pot.

Thanks.

Did you guys check the linked picture in my previous post? You shouldn't have any worries with him fighting on your side.

Did you guys check the linked picture in my previous post? You shouldn't have any worries with him fighting on your side.

Steroid use to that degree is considered illegal drug use and can be the basis for rejecting a military application.

I went to school with a guy that looked like Lou Ferrigno from "The Incredible Hulk" TV show.  He was a pilot candidate and required a waiver because his weight exceeded the max for a fighter pilot.

There are standards, and there are exceptions.  We get wrapped around the axel on here too many times arguing hypothetical exceptions to the rule.

The rule should be based on the needs of the military, and the exceptions approved or rejected on a case by case basis taking all factors into account.

As a former military officer, I dealt with standards and regulations everyday.  I have firsthand knowledge of the system and how it works (or at least how it's intended to work).

People used to think that flat footed people couldn't be soldiers

Side story since you brought this up.  A while ago I had served in the military for 10 years and I look through my medical records during a routine screening.  It said I had a foot disorder.  I'm thinking to myself I'm perfectly fine and in good health, must be a mistake.  My boss overhears my mumbling and says do you have flat feet (yes)...then you have a foot disorder.  I always thought flat feet was just a cosmetic thing.  I went in to see the military doctor a couple years later for screening and he comments that he's never seen feet flatter than mine (and he looks likes he's 80 years old).  Never gave me problems running marathons and road marches.  I think there was also a medical waiver for it in my enlistment documents too.

I think it relates to transgenders, you can't just ban a category of people cause some of them can perform well.  Screen out the ones that can't do well.

Side story since you brought this up.  A while ago I had served in the military for 10 years and I look through my medical records during a routine screening.  It said I had a foot disorder.  I'm thinking to myself I'm perfectly fine and in good health, must be a mistake.  My boss overhears my mumbling and says do you have flat feet (yes)...then you have a foot disorder.  I always thought flat feet was just a cosmetic thing.  I went in to see the military doctor a couple years later for screening and he comments that he's never seen feet flatter than mine (and he looks likes he's 80 years old).  Never gave me problems running marathons and road marches.  I think there was also a medical waiver for it in my enlistment documents too.

I think it relates to transgenders, you can't just ban a category of people cause some of them can perform well.  Screen out the ones that can't do well.

Having flat feet, or fallen arches, is considered a deformity.  Only 20-30% of people have the problem in either one or both feet.

There is a functional relationship between the structure of the arch of the foot and the biomechanics of the lower leg. The arch provides an elastic,
springy connection between the forefoot and the hind foot. This association safeguards so that a majority of the forces incurred during weight
bearing of the foot can be dissipated before the force reaches the long bones of the leg and thigh.

Three studies of military recruits have shown no evidence of later increased injury, or foot problems, due to flat feet, in a population of people
who reach military service age without prior foot problems. However, these studies cannot be used to judge possible future damage from this
condition when diagnosed at younger ages. They also cannot be applied to persons whose flat feet are associated with foot symptoms, or
certain symptoms in other parts of the body (such as the leg or back) possibly referable to the foot.

I have a curved spine in excess of the DoD maximum standard.  It kept me from starting college under my previously awarded AFROTC 4-year scholarship.  I was able to obtain a waiver based on X-Rays, chiropractor evaluations, my health and medical history, and a review by the Department of Defense Medical Evaluation Review Board (DoDMERB).

Flat footed applicants for service can also seek waivers.  Lots of factors involved, but it comes down to whether they need you enough to take a chance on your medical condition.

You totally ignored the question.

WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY WHAT YOU JUST SAID???  You made it a point by bringing the Constitution into this discussion.  Show me which part you are referring to....

Aiea beat me to it but that is what I was going to cite.

Aiea beat me to it but that is what I was going to cite.

Then you'd BOTH be wrong.

The DoD has TWO equal opportunity polices:

1.  Military Equal Opportunity, and

2.  Equal Employment Opportunity.

Number 1 is for those entering active military service. 

Unlike many civilian employers, the military is allowed to discriminate in some areas based on the nature of its work.
For example, it doesn't hire or retain those who, because of their age, disability, or physical fitness are unable to
perform military duties, which can take place in harsh environments including combat zones. However while the
military may be able to engage in these forms of lawful discrimination, it is prohibited by law from discriminating
on the basis of:

- Race
- Color
- Religion
- National origin
- Gender (note that some direct combat positions have historically been off-limits to women, but these policies may be changing).

Under the EO program, service members who believe they have experienced discrimination have the option of
submitting two types of EO complaints: (1) informal; and (2) formal. Informal complaints do not have to be written
and are not subject to any reporting deadlines. However, formal complaints must be written and typically involve
a sworn statement from the service member. The Army, for example, uses the Equal Opportunity Complaint Form
which includes an oath and affidavit.

Formal complaints also have strict reporting deadlines and normally trigger an administrative investigation which
also has set deadlines. Some services, such as the Army, also require commanders to prepare a written reprisal
plan showing steps taken to protect the complainant, any witnesses and the alleged perpetrator.

With either an informal or formal complaint, service members are encouraged to first use their chain of command
to resolve complaints of discrimination or sexual harassment. Most units will have a designated, full-time EO officer
who is the point of contact for all EO complaints and who is responsible for conducting unit-wide training. However,
if the complaint involves the chain of command, a service member can also use alternate reporting channels such
as a chaplain, a judge advocate (a military lawyer) or the DoD's Inspector General.

Also, it's important to note that, while incidents of sexual harassment are addressed through the EO process, those
involving sexual assault are addressed through the UCMJ and will involve criminal investigations.

The other (#2) process is for civilian hires and pretty much mirror any other company governed by Federal EEO laws.

Civilians who work for the DoD have access to the EEO complaint system to address any incidents of
discrimination or unfair treatment. Since DoD civilians do not face the same workplace requirements as service
members, more categories of prohibited discrimination apply, These categories include:

- Race
- Color
- Sex
- Religion
- National Origin
- Age
- Disability
- Workplace reprisals

http://military.findlaw.com/administrative-issues-benefits/equal-opportunity-policies-in-the-military.html


Unless and until "Transgender" becomes a separate protected class under the law for hiring practices in the military, the services and Commander in Chief can set the policy as they see fit. 

The "little thing called the Constitution" is not a catch-all for every extreme exception in the country.  If you're looking for fair treatment for what is regarded as a psychological disorder by most, then the military is not for you. 

If you're looking to be abused equally along with other recruits, you should run, don't walk, to your nearest recruiter!

Side story since you brought this up.  A while ago I had served in the military for 10 years and I look through my medical records during a routine screening.  It said I had a foot disorder.  I'm thinking to myself I'm perfectly fine and in good health, must be a mistake.  My boss overhears my mumbling and says do you have flat feet (yes)...then you have a foot disorder.  I always thought flat feet was just a cosmetic thing.  I went in to see the military doctor a couple years later for screening and he comments that he's never seen feet flatter than mine (and he looks likes he's 80 years old).  Never gave me problems running marathons and road marches.  I think there was also a medical waiver for it in my enlistment documents too.

I think it relates to transgenders, you can't just ban a category of people cause some of them can perform well.  Screen out the ones that can't do well.

On my records it states that I am of Asian descent. I don't agree with that. I am pan-racial, non-polynomial, of no-color skin. I don't know how to explain it but I don't identify with the Asian culture. I don't like rice, my parents didn't own a laundromat and I think Chinese people are obnoxiously loud talkers especially when speaking Cantonese.
I refused to be categorized into a specific racial identity.
I'm fine and I want to continue to serve my country not as Asian but as a poly-racial being that self identifies regularly.

I think it relates to transgenders, you can't just ban a category of people cause some of them can perform well.  Screen out the ones that can't do well.

Explain the process for screening out the transgenders who fall in the 45-50% range who will attempt suicide.  What's the test like for identifying those TGs who are fully adjusted to living a "normal life" while being born in the "wrong body"?

Then there's the other viewpoint -- that of the other soldiers.  How does a well adjusted recruit out of high school deal with the fact the guy in the bunk next to or above his wears make-up and Victoria's Secret under his uniform.

Better yet, how about the female recruits required to shower with a male TG?

Unless we are ready to make the decision there is no difference between males and females in how we billet them in the military, throwing another "gender" or two in the mix just makes for a logistical nightmare, not to mention keeping morale and sexual harassment under control.

I also don't like rice, my parents didn't own a laundromat and I too think Chinese people are obnoxiously loud talkers especially when speaking Cantonese. But be careful saying you aren't an Asian. I once said, as a somewhat similar joke, that I came from outer space, and the US government used this and other alleged statements (including some in support of firearms, and others questioning the validity of the mental health professions) against me and kicked me out of an unnamed state program, which was upheld in federal court.

I also don't like rice, my parents didn't own a laundromat and I too think Chinese people are obnoxiously loud talkers especially when speaking Cantonese. But be careful saying you aren't an Asian. I once said, as a somewhat similar joke, that I came from outer space, and the US government used this and other alleged statements (including some in support of firearms, and others questioning the validity of the mental health professions) against me and kicked me out of an unnamed state program, which was upheld in federal court.

Why would the US government have to defend their decision in Federal Court for a STATE program kicking you out?

That makes no sense.

I believe you can file in either state or federal court. Baker, Peruta, and most firearms cases are likewise filed in federal court to address grievances committed by a state, right? Usually, important cases would be filed in federal court.