Apple CEO Cook opposes President Trump’s reinstatement of the military’s ban on transgender service members

“Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued guidance to military commanders stressing that there will be no change in military policy toward transgender service members until Defense Secretary Jim Mattis receives further direction from the White House,” Luis Martinez reports for ABC News. “President Trump announced via Twitter on Wednesday what appeared to be a reinstatement of the military’s ban on transgender service members.”

Martinez reports, “A ban on transgender military service members was lifted by then–Defense Secretary Ash Carter last summer.”

“Vice Adm. Robert Burke, the Navy’s top personnel officer, issued guidance to his commanders Wednesday that no personnel actions should be taken until further guidance is received by the White House and that no ongoing medical treatments for transgender sailors should be ceased, writing, ‘Currently serving TG [transgender] service members will continue to receive all necessary medical care,'” Martinez reports. “About 160 sailors and fewer than five Marines are undergoing some form of transgender transition through the Navy’s medical services, according to a Defense Department official. About 80 Army personnel are in similar transitions. The Air Force does not provide details about how many of its members may be in transition.”

Full article here.

On Wednesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook took to Twitter to oppose the Presdient’s policy reinstatement:

MacDailyNews Note: Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey also took to Twitter yesterday to voice their opposition to the reinstatement of the military’s ban on transgender service members:

SEE ALSO:
Apple among 53 corporations to support transgender student’s U.S. Supreme Court case over bathrooms – March 2, 2017
Apple, other tech firms to support 17-year-old transgender student’s bathroom choice case – February 25, 2017
Why Apple won’t be hurt by denouncing President Trump’s decision to rescind federal transgender bathroom guidelines – February 23, 2017
Apple condemns President Trump’s decision to rescind federal transgender bathroom guidelines – February 23, 2017
Tim Cook’s Apple: More socially responsible, less visionary – August 24, 2016
Apple’s politics may be hurting its brand – June 29, 2016
Apple objects to North Carolina law company says discriminates against LGBTs – March 28, 2016
Apple backs U.S. bill banning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender discrimination – July 23, 2015

93 Comments

    1. Not me, seriously. The US taxpayers would be “on the hook” for all costs and inefficiencies and unexpected performance declines due to policies deemed to benefit far less than 1% of the population.

      Next thing the Democrats will want is an exemption for mentally retarted people to serve in the military … whoa, wait, that is what they already wanted.

    2. Trump: “Hey, Mad Dog. A hundred bucks says I can get Progressives to defend joining the military.”

      Secretary of Defense: “What? Bullshït. You’re on.”

      Trump: [pulls out phone] “Watch this…”

      bwahahahahahahaha…Trumped again!

      1. Charles Krauthammer FOX columnist no less…“Trump relishes such a cat-and-mouse game and, by playing it so openly, reveals a deeply repellent vindictiveness in the service of a pathological need to display dominance. Dominance is his game.”
        It’s a sociopathic identity that you clearly identify with.
        Like your man…worthless tosser.

    1. The U.S. military is the least appropriate venue for pushing the Democrat party’s bullshit, culture-destroying, PC “progressive” agenda I can imagine (not that any venue is appropriate for the Democrat’s “anything goes” brand of rot).

      If you’re okay with this:

      You’re fsckng nuts, too.

        1. I am with you man, soon My beloved trump will announce a new policy to ship all transgender, gays and lesbians out of the country into a fiery hell pit where they belong.

    2. CPW: yeah, just b/c the military has so-called standards, flat-footed Americans haven’t ever been able to be a part of combat. I heard jet fighter pilots have to have 20-20 vision. Jeez, imagine that. These standards are quite backward and so limiting. I would guess medical techniques could remedy both and enable the person to realize their military dreams?

  1. The purpose of the military is to defend the U.S.A., not to be a petri dish for liberal social experimentation. Those accepted into the military need to be mentally stable, mentally able, and mentally capable. A gender identity disorder is a mental disorder that needs counseling, not camouflage.

    Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder. — American Psychiatric Association

    Stop harming/killing those with mental disorders by pumping them full of cancer-feeding hormone treatments and/or genital mutilation surgeries and help them deal with the root cause, their underlying mental disorder, instead!

    1. You know what else is a mental disorder? Sociopathy!
      I don’t see the military blocking that. Do you?

      Who are YOU to judge how anyone feels, especially when it doesn’t concern you. You benefit from others holding up to the same standard when it comes to you.

    2. Having trouble with the truth, are we, First2014?

      The term gender dysphoria applies only to the discontent (“dysphoria” means “distress”) experienced by some persons resulting from gender identity issues. The American Psychiatric Association quite specifically states that “gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”

      In other words, a transgender person who is not suffering distress from his situation is not suffering from gender dysphoria, or any other “mental disorder.” They can be, and usually are, high-functioning individuals who can hold down a job and defend their country as well as anybody else.

      Similarly, it is not a mental disorder to be African-American, although one might suffer from clinical depression aggravated by racial discrimination. I suppose you would cure their anxiety by helping black folks to “deal with their underlying disorder” by going back to Africa, in the same way that you would “cure” anxiety owing to prejudice against gender nonconformity by “curing” the victims rather than addressing the prejudice.

      You are certainly entitled to your own opinion about LGBT issues, but don’t support them with lies about the American Psychiatric Association.

      1. The besieged U.S. taxpayer, who funds the U.S. government, including the military, should not be paying for harming/killing those with mental disorders by pumping them full of cancer-feeding hormone treatments and/or genital mutilation surgeries.

      2. I happen to agree with you that the taxpayers should not be paying for entirely elective procedures, but that is an entirely different issue. You can deny medical coverage for reassignment surgery without excluding all transexuals from service.

        Saying that no transgender individuals can serve in the military because some of them want reassignment surgery is like saying that no women can serve because some of them might ask for a nose job, or that no African-Americans can serve because they have hair and skin issues that differ from white soldiers.

        The military should be looking for qualified soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, not enforcing social policy by excluding otherwise qualified recruits (or expelling high-performing personnel) because some folks in the Trump base don’t approve of their gender or ethnic identification.

        This is an issue on which Americans can genuinely differ, but the decision should be based on actual evidence rather than visceral bias. Only about three weeks ago, the Defense Department announced that it was undertaking a six-month study of this issue. The President short-circuited that process by shooting from the hip with no facts to support his opinion

    3. You cite the APA. If you read the section on treatment, I think you will find an opinion different from yours. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don’t believe you are a mental health professional with any experience in this field, so your opinion os something I respect your right to have, even if I think it’s based upon prejudice, not science.

      From what I have been reading in the last 24 hours, the vast majority of the transgender service members currently on active duty meet your test of being “mentally stable, mentally able, and mentally capable.” If not, all the branches of service can manage those who are struggling. I believe that all service members deserve medical and psychiatric care and counseling, when needed, and when providing it will help preserve the force. When someone is found not to be able to return to the level of mental functioning necessary to do their job, they can receive a discharge. By far, those discharged for mental and emotional problems are not transgender. Drugs, family problems, and past or recent trauma are a much greater problem.

      1. Policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.

        The transgendered suffer a disorder of “assumption” like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one’s maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

        With body dysmorphic disorder, an often socially crippling condition, the individual is consumed by the assumption “I’m ugly.” These disorders occur in subjects who have come to believe that some of their psycho-social conflicts or problems will be resolved if they can change the way that they appear to others. Such ideas work like ruling passions in their subjects’ minds and tend to be accompanied by a solipsistic argument.

        For the transgendered, this argument holds that one’s feeling of “gender” is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one’s mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society’s tolerance of this “personal truth” but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for “transgender equality,” the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.

        With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states—including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts—to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. That government can intrude into parents’ rights to seek help in guiding their children indicates how powerful these advocates have become.

        How to respond? Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry’s domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field. Many will recall how, in the 1990s, an accusation of parental sex abuse of children was deemed unquestionable by the solipsists of the “recovered memory” craze.

        You won’t hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.

        We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into “sex-reassignment surgery”—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as “satisfied” by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

        It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex- reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

        There are subgroups of the transgendered, and for none does “reassignment” seem apt. One group includes male prisoners like Pvt. Bradley Manning, the convicted national-security leaker who now wishes to be called Chelsea. Facing long sentences and the rigors of a men’s prison, they have an obvious motive for wanting to change their sex and hence their prison. Given that they committed their crimes as males, they should be punished as such; after serving their time, they will be free to reconsider their gender.

        Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from “everything is normal” sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. “Diversity” counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.

        Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston’s Children’s Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.

        At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. “Sex change” is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.

        Dr. Paul R. McHugh, University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, June 12, 2014

        1. McHugh is just one voice in this debate. Being able to write an articulate argument, some of which is opinion, and some of which is based upon studies using the science available at the time, does not make him right or suggest that he has access to some special truth. We have a long way to go to understand human sexuality and gender identity. Twitter is not a good place to have that conversation.

          1. The University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine vs. “Sparkles.”

            Who to side with? Such a difficult conundrum!

            1. You really don’t know my background, so you have no idea whether my opinion should carry as much weight as a retired professor from Johns Hopkins.

              Resorting to name calling and personal attacks rather than reasoned debate has become the norm on MDN.

              I have always replied to your posts on here, even when I didn’t agree with them, in a respectful tone.

            2. And Lord Kelvin wanted to base the official thermometer on the number of chirps a cricket makes per minute. Just because someone has a Distinguished Professorship does not make them right. (It does not make them wrong either. But making that reference does nothing to bolster your point.)

        2. McHugh is widely regarded in the profession as hopelessly out of step. Some years ago, he left the American Academy of Pediatrics because it would not oppose gay adoption and founded the American College of Pediatricians. His group has 500 members. The AAP has 64,000.

            1. uh, what’s “in it” for Trump, who is worth 7-10b dollars, to trade that for a dollar-a-year crap job taking abuse from libtards like you?

              you just aren’t very bright.

    4. With all these people having early to mid life crises… i personally believe that it’s time to reward those who wish to be unique. For the males, we should reward them with a Eunuchness that should “define them’. For the women… I don’t believe in genital mutilation for women, sorry about that. Anyway, our Men NEED THEIR BALLS TO FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY!
      discaimer: all puns and satire isintended and directed directly.

  2. You can’t change your chromosomes.

    These poor people are simply examples of future cancer sufferers after being unnaturally pumped full of testosterone/estrogen and only God knows what else to imitate whatever image their psychiatric illness (gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID)) is manifesting.

    They should not be in the U.S. military, they should be having their mental disorder(s) attended to.

    1. As I pointed out to First2014 above, gender dysphoria (the replacement term for GID) is distress attributable to gender nonconformity. The nonconformity itself is not a “mental condition” or “psychiatric illness.” The dysphoria diagnosis is based, in most cases, on anxiety caused by real or anticipated hostility towards the patients by those around them. Blaming the victims is like blaming slaves for racism.

      Most psychiatrists and psychologists agree that transexuals are no more “curable” through therapy than homosexuals. As you say, they can’t change their chromosomes.

    2. True, you can’t change your chromosomes. But it’s not a matter of being just XX or XY. Humans have about 24,000 genes, and scientists are just beginning to understand how they all act to influence the unique persons each of us become. It’s quire possible that sexual orientation and gender identity are genetically determined, just not by the X or Y chromosomes..

      Addressing your second point, who should decide which service members with mental disorders should receive treatment and which should be discharged? Right now, it’s mental and mental health professionals who are also on active duty and serving. If we discharged everyone with a mental health diagnosis, it would severely compromise readiness. That’s why all branches of service have these professionals to offer treatment. Most service members can continue to serve honorably and do their job, if given the help and support they need. In most cases, it is far less expensive to treat them than to discharge them and start over recruiting and training someone new.

      1. U.S.military service membership is not subject to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO).

        U.S. military service membership is subject to Military Equal Opportunity (EO).

        The U.S. 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.

        U.S. military recruits with flat feet may be disqualified for service at the military entrance processing station (MEPS) if the assessor decides that the person’s flat feet may become an issue because the condition causes the person chronic physical pain, especially while marching or walking, so the recruit cannot serve.

        U.S. military recruits who are disabled — in a wheelchair, for instance, or blind or deaf — are disqualified for service.

        Any dental issue that interferes with a normal diet, or includes complex dental implant systems with complications will disqualify you from service. Having braces can also temporarily disqualify you.

        You have to have normal genitalia to be in the military. Absence of one or both testicles, whether congenital, acquired, or unexplained absence of a testicle is also unacceptable according to military standards.

        Recruits with eczema can also be barred. It’s dry, itchy, and it spreads. Severe acne can also be barred as it runs the gamut from requiring antibiotics to interfering with proper wear of a gas mask.

        Shall I go on or do you get it, finally?

            1. Botty, so I guess you know absolutely nothing about the UCMJ or rules of engagement that the U.S. Military has had for many decades (some going back well over 100 years).

            2. Why, yes I do…and nowhere in the rules of engagement or UCMJ does it suggest that the military pay for transgender surgeries.

              Nice try, that’s all a steer can do.

            3. I don’t share your conviction that taxpayers paying for the surgical removal of a mentally unstable man’s penis is “honorable.”

              call me old-fashioned.

            4. Please show me in the Constitution where it stipulates that the military is required to perform transgender surgery on mentally ill men…

              I’ll wait.

            5. oh, wait I found it myself:

              X.
              The penises not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        1. Seems you can’t get anything right.

          You make it sound like the entrance requirements for age, disability, or physical fitness are extreme. They are not. There are A LOT of active duty positions that require very little physical capabilities.

          Flat feet ONLY excludes people from certain career paths in the military and not from all services. Untreatable foot deformities that lead to other, untreatable, secondary effects MAY disqualify someone from enlistment.

          Yes, people blind, totally deaf, or confined to a wheelchair are prohibited from enlisting, but there are many physical disabilities that do NOT prohibit enlisting.

          Dental issues are only prohibitive for two reasons: if they both are 1) not treatable with normal dental or surgical procedures and 2) affect other bodily functions or cause complications. Implants will only keep you out of certain careers (such as working on extremely high pulse power equipment).

          Having normal genitalia like you describe as a requirement is 100% bullshit. I personally know of a young man (neighbor’s son) with one testicle that enlisted (and is still actively serving).

          Your statement, “Recruits with eczema can also be barred.” is also bullshit. My son in law has excema so bad that he won’t go out in public without long pants and long sleeve shirts, but he was able to enlist in the Army and served. His is treatable much of the time, but occasional flare ups can be extensive.

          Shall I go on about how you make things that go into the total equation as to why someone may, or may not, be excluded from enlisting and try to turn them into black and white tests is just plain wrong?

          There are very few absolutes anymore and have not been for some time.

  3. Tell you what Tim, put your money where your mouth is then and volunteer to pay for all of their medical procedures instead of that being dumped on the taxpayers.

    Otherwise, you’re just another snowflake SJW that runs his mouth over matters (like the military) that he doesn’t have a solitary clue about.

  4. Not surprising (the policy announcement, as well as the reactions to it).

    So, the argument from POTUS is the “tremendous cost” and “disruption”.

    A 2016 study of cost determined that any additional cost related to health needs of transgender service personnel in US armed forces would represent 0.005% of the total helth-related expenditures in the military. That’s a half of a one hundredth of a percent. So much for the “tremendous cost”.

    As for disruption, the study looked at foreign militaries that allow trans people to openly serve (18 countries so far) and concluded that there was no discernible impact on unit cohesion or operational readiness as a result of LGBT personnel serving openly.

    So, as it usually is, the reasons POTUS gave for this decision are invalid.

    1. Don’t confuse them with facts, Predrag. They will just claim that the group that conducted the study for the Defense Department was “libtard.” Yeah, the RAND Corporation is really noted for its pacifist treehuggers!

    2. Pre: did you know that taking meds for depression, having experienced PTSD, and (any) history of alcohol/drug (not current) prevents enlisting? I personally believe the military shouldn’t be paying for anyone’s gender change and using a stat to minimize an expense when in debt is folly. When it comes to “disruption,” please rationalize gender re-assignment with the conditions mentioned above that are disqualifying per military. Per disruption, by military standards, there’s no contradiction…completely valid.

      1. Retention is not the same as enlistment. If a service member develops some mental disorder, it may be less expensive and more effective in preserving the force to treat it, especially if the member is expected to be able to return to full duty. A person could be transgender and have none of those disqualifying conditions. Whether to provide surgery to those already service was being studied, but Trump wasn’t interested in waiting for the results of that study, even to Gen. Mattis apparently was.

      2. ripabo, BULLSHIT.

        Taking meds for depression, having experienced PTSD, or (any) history of alcohol/drug (not current) DOES NOT prevent enlisting. NONE of those in and of themselves prevent ANYONE from enlisting. Did you know that NONE of them by themselves can even keep someone from getting a Top Secret clearance. (Or did you intentionally put that “and” in there rather than what I assumed should have been an “or”. If you really did mean that an individual with all three conditions it is likely that such a person would be denied enlistment.)

        Yes, each of them, if a material matter, are taken into account, but NONE of them are ever the sole reason for denying enlistment.

        In fact, I know of several people who had alcohol problems in their teens then enlisted in their late teens or early 20s with no problems enlisting even with them being up front about the alcohol problems earlier in life.

  5. It only took President Trump 15 minutes on Twitter to fix this stupid Obama mistake. Too bad the rest of Obama’s feckless screwups can’t be fixed so quickly and easily!

      1. That’s deflection, the question is: does the Israeli taxpayer finance sex-change surgeries within their military?

        I’ll save you some time, the answer is no.

        1. As I said above, financing surgeries is a separate issue. Trump didn’t just decline to pay for medical treatment… he banned all transexual individuals from serving in any capacity even if they individually have no anticipated medical costs.

          He is throwing people out of the military who have been serving with distinction, costing taxpayers nothing beyond their salaries, and putting their lives on the line for their fellow Americans… even Americans who dodged the draft in wartime. It is no more than we might expect from somebody who has treated the Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights as no more than suggestions.

          I think most readers can see who is engaged in deflection here. This isn’t about medical costs (estimated at roughly 1/10 of what the government is currently spending on erectile disfunction drugs for active-duty and retired military personnel). It isn’t about good order or efficiency in the military (the countries that do not discriminate illustrate that). It is about furthering the prejudices of a certain segment of Trump’s base to distract them from his failure to deal with the crisis in health care.

  6. Look, Trump will do whatever he wants to do and can get away with. He will probably fire Sessions (a good thing for legal pot) and he doesn’t listen to anyone but himself. What amazes me is the people who are shocked that anything like this happens. Haven’t they figured this out yet? I’m guessing if somebody told him that gays would be detrimental to the military, they would be next. Even the gay generals. This is not one bit surprising and stay tuned folks, there is much more to come.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.