Trying to change the subject since his base is pissed about his budget.
This, but the ban makes sense. The military provides free medical care for everyone, and for that reason, they are very selective about who they let in. There are a lot of things that don't necessarily inhibit ones ability to be an effective soldier but require expensive medical treatment which disqualify people from service. This isn't bigotry, it's consistency.
How much do you think transgender therapy costs?
Probably more than chronic gingivitis, which is also a disqualifier. Look, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just making the point that the military doesn't admit people with chronic medical conditions.
Who says that all transgender individuals need or want an "expensive medical treatment" with their choice in living?
And your preference of words to describe it as a "chronic medical condition" ..... really? (And yet you don't want us to see any "bigotry" in your posts.)
Well he didn't ban everyone who considers themselves transgender. The memo states "individuals who the policies state may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery — are disqualified from military service." So no, it's not about bigotry, it's no different than the military not accepting anyone else who will need medical treatment unrelated to their service.
In addition to the cost of treatment, there's the issue of the fighting readiness of such troops in forward areas where their needed medical treatment isn't available. The battle-readiness of a transgender Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman is a legitimate question when that person is stationed in a forward area where their meds are suddenly unavailable. What happens then? What happens to the serviceperson who's stuck in, say, Kandahar Province and events cause this person to not receive meds that they NEED?
I don't have a problem with the cost of the therapies and meds for these folks being separated from the service. If they received lifetime medical care from the VA for their transgender issues at taxpayer expense, I wouldn't have a problem; their discharge isn't their fault. But if someone has a condition which will cause them to be dysfunctional without their meds or therapies under combat conditions where meds are not guaranteed to be available, then that person isn't the sort of person that is combat-capable, and ALL enlisted military personnel need to be combat capable. There is a world of difference between being active military and a civilian employee of the DoD.