7 Comments
User's avatar
Debra Strunk's avatar

Thank you for your clear analysis

Richard Luthmann's avatar

I'm sorry. There is no constitutional “right” to serve in the military. The military is not a therapy program, an identity-validation office, or a federal jobs club. It is a warfighting institution. The only person with the constitutional authority to command the military is the President of the United States. Courts can police genuine constitutional violations, but they are not supposed to become shadow generals deciding who must be accepted, retained, accommodated, or medically supported inside the armed forces. Military service is selective by nature. The services exclude people every day for medical, psychological, physical, criminal, age, fitness, and readiness reasons. Nobody screams “erasure” when that happens. But gender ideology demands special treatment, special language, special medicine, and special constitutional status. No. The military exists to win wars. Everything else is secondary.

Chris Geidner's avatar

And, two judges explained why this is a “genuine constitutional violation.”

Everything else you wrote is addressed in Wilkins’s opinion, and even noted in my report. What you incorrectly describe as “special treatment” being sought is actually the different (and worse) treatment being imposed on trans people in comparison with every other medical condition.

Richard Luthmann's avatar

And you've sunk yourself.

If the treatment is related to a "medical condition," how can the military's exclusion be legitimately questioned?

And why can't I then argue that people with "flat feet" also have a right to be in the military?

Darkshadow's avatar

The military excludes people for enormous categories of physical and medical conditions:

Flat feet

Poor eyesight beyond certain thresholds

Asthma

Diabetes

History of depression or anxiety

Various orthopedic conditions

Being too short or too tall

Being overweight

Color blindness

Hearing loss

None of these exclusions have ever been held unconstitutional despite affecting large numbers of people who genuinely want to serve.

Are these unconstitutional requirements as well?

Jacobs-Meadway Roberta's avatar

Physical disabilities that impact the ability to serve have been applied equally to all. Being able to see and hear well enough are reasonable requirements for active service. Who anyone chooses to love or what gender one is differs from such requirements and does not pass any test for being reasonable. When I was interested in JAG, my eyesight did not meet the requirements for the organization . End of story.

Kelly Nicholson's avatar

I’d be hopeful.. but this is going to end up at the corrupt Supreme Court and they will do anything the orange MF wants.