Federal Judge: Trump Admin Must Allow ‘Transgenders’ to Enlist in Military Beginning Jan. 1

the government must allow the enlistment beginning Jan. 1.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge appointed to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton has issued an order clarifying her recent injunction against the Trump administration’s ban on “transgender” enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces, and has outlined that the government must allow the enlistment beginning Jan. 1.

“[The previous] order was to revert to the status quo with regard to accession and retention that existed before the issuance of the presidential memorandum—that is, the retention and accession policies established in the June 30, 2016 directive-type memorandum as modified by Secretary of Defense James Mattis on June 30, 2017,” wrote U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

“Those policies allowed for the accession of transgender individuals into the military beginning on January 1, 2018,” she continued. “Any action by any of the defendants that changes this status quo is preliminarily enjoined.” The Trump administration had asked for clarification about Kollar-Kelly’s October injunction, in which she opined that the ban on transgender enlistment was “causing … serious ongoing harms.” The government noted that Gen. Mattis had been granted time by the president to determine whether or not allowing those who identify as the opposite sex could have any negative impact on military readiness. 

Kollar-Kelly ruled that the policy permitting transgender enlistment, as initially issued under the Obama administration and amended by Mattis, must move forward.

transgender-military-e1467715507660-630x354

As previously reported, Trump announced his decision to reinstate the ban on transgenders in the military in July, advising that the issue is a distraction and would place a burden on the finances of the Armed Forces.

“After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military,” he tweeted. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail. Thank you.” 

Weeks later, five service members filed suit to challenge the ban, with the assistance of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders.

“Because they identified themselves as transgender in reliance on [the government’s] earlier promise [of lifting the ban], Plaintiffs have lost the stability and certainty they had in their careers and benefits, including post-military and retirement benefits that depend on the length of their service,” the lawsuit read.

Kollar-Kotelly issued an injunction in favor of the complainants in October, writing in part, “On the record before the court, there is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effective on the military at all. In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.”

After the government sought clarification on whether or not her order “prohibit[s] the secretary of defense from exercising his discretion to defer the January 1, 2018 effective date,” Kollar-Kotelly advised that there could be no postponement.

On Nov. 21, a second federal judge issued an injunction against the enlistment ban. U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis, appointed to the bench by then-President George H.W. Bush wrote that the “capricious, arbitrary, and unqualified tweet of new policy does not trump the methodical and systematic review by military stakeholders qualified to understand the ramifications of policy change.”

~ Originally written by Heather Clark

Children as Young as 11 Could Start Irreversible Hormone Treatment to Change Gender After Court Ruling

September 6, 2017: Children as young as 11 could be permitted to start irreversible hormone treatment to change their biological sex without the permission of a court under an upcoming landmark family court case in Sydney.

TGender Identity Development Service (GIDS) found that 1,986 children under the age of 18 have been accepted for specialist treatment in the past year. Getty Images

Children as young as 11 could be permitted to start irreversible hormone treatment to change their biological sex without the permission of a court under an upcoming landmark family court case in Sydney.

The Daily Mail reports that five Family Court judges will sit on the case to be heard by the Full Court later this year – the first time they have done so in 12 years.

The case was brought by the father of a 16-year-old who was born female but identified as male from nine-years-old, according to the Daily Telegraph. The child, “Kelvin”, reportedly changed schools to start as a male, used a chest binder and attended the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex and Questioning “campout” on the Central Coast in 2014.

The court has already decided that Kelvin is “competent” and fully understands what is ­involved in starting hormone treatment; however, his father has launched the appeal to ask the court to step out of the process all together. Should the judges rule in favor of the family, children wishing to undergo hormone therapy will only need the permission of a parent and a medical professional.

Currently, for access stage one treatment known as puberty blockers, children are no longer required to go to court, as the process was recently deemed fully reversible. The second stage of treatment – irreversible gender-affirming hormones, is what will be contested.

A June report from the Daily Telegraph said that an analysis of Family Court judgments from the start of this year show 10 children have been granted legal approval to start “stage two” treatment to allow for physical changes.

Recently, the court ruled in favor of 17-year-old “Ashton” to undergo treatment to fulfill his wishes of becoming a boy after the family spoke of “Ashton’s” distress at having female attributes.

Data released earlier this year by the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) shows 1,986 children under the age of 18 have been accepted for specialist treatment in the past year. That’s up from just 94 in 2009-10, with 37 young children under the age of five referred since then.

Western Sydney University professor John Whitehall, who has more than 50 years’ experience treating children, called the rise in transitioning “an infectious trend” and called for an age limit of at least 18 before children who claim they have gender dysphoria are permitted to undergo treatment.

Professor Whitehall said it was “unreasonable” to expect children to understand the gravity of the decisions they were making at such a young age.

“It is unreasonable to expect juveniles to have a complete picture of where they want to be in later life, especially kids that haven’t even yet reached puberty. This is an infectious trend, a dangerous fad and I think it’s nonsense. The courts should stop messing with our kids until they are at least 18 because once you change, that’s it.”

He urged a “watchful waiting” approac­h instead, arguing that a vast majority of children who question their gender will revert to their biological sex by puberty.

“I think it’s a dangerous fad; a dangerous behavioral fashion trend fuelled by the ideologues and fuelled by the media,” he said, adding he was concerned that programs such as Safe Schools, which promotes “gender fluidity”, were causing extra pressure.

“Even making that so-called social transition has consequences,” he said. “It nails the child to the cross. It’s very difficult to come back from that.