Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Businesses Google Government Microsoft Apple Politics

Tech Leaders Speak Out Against Trump Ban on Transgender Troops ( 517

Technology executives, including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai took to social media to voice their displeasure over President Donald Trump's latest stance on transgendered people in the military.

"I am grateful to the transgender members of the military for their service," Google CEO Sundar Pichai said.
Apple CEO Tim Cook said, "We are indebted to all who serve. Discrimination against anyone holds everyone back."
Brad Smith, Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer said, "We honor and respect all who serve, including the transgender members of our military."
Salesforce said it "believes in equality for all. We support and thank all U.S. service members, including transgender Americans."
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, "Everyone should be able to serve their country -- no matter who they are."
Veteran entrepreneur Max Levchin urged support for transgender people across party lines. "Trans kids, soldiers etc need our support today and to know they are valued & respected regardless of politics. Let us not be divided."
Uber told news outlet Axios, "We owe the deepest debt of gratitude to all those who volunteer to serve in the US Armed Forces and defend our values. These patriotic Americans deserve to be honored and respected, not turned away because of who they are."
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said, "Discrimination in any form is wrong for all of us."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Leaders Speak Out Against Trump Ban on Transgender Troops

Comments Filter:
  • Cue the outrage! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @04:02PM (#54885607)
    The policy this is reversing has only existed about a year. Why are people acting like there was a trans brigade charging the shores of Normandy?
    • Maybe because the US military is knee deep in conflict zones? Sure, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the places we don't know about might not be Normandy, but it's still harm's way.
    • Ah yes, the classic children's "We haven't been behaving well for long ... why is mommy mad that we are misbehaving" defense.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Why are people acting like there was a trans brigade charging the shores of Normandy?

      Wartime is when the military STOPS banning LGBTs. During WW2, it was very difficult to avoid the draft, and plenty of LGBTs were inducted, and plenty of them landed on the Normandy beaches. It is only in peacetime that the military uses the excuse that LGBTs can't serve "because we need to win wars", but not when there is actually a war to be won.

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        Isn't that why they formed the WAACs and the other all-female auxiliary units of other branches during the war?

      • Re:Cue the outrage! (Score:5, Informative)

        by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @05:19PM (#54886427) Journal

        This is fairly disingenuous: yes, of course many homosexuals were drafted (and probably transgenders, although that as a legitimate CONCEPT and not a mental illness is relatively new) but in fact one of the few ways to actually successfully avoid the draft was to credibly convince your draft board that you were gay. []
        "The United States military had a long-standing policy that service members found to be homosexual or to have engaged in homosexual conduct were to be court-martialed for sodomy, imprisoned and dishonorably discharged. However, with the mobilization of troops following the United States' entry into World War II, it became impractical to convene court-martial boards of commissioned officers and some commanders began issuing administrative discharges instead. Several waves of reform addressing the handling of homosexuals in the military resulted in a 1944 policy directive that called for homosexuals to be committed to military hospitals, examined by psychiatrists, and discharged under Regulation 615-360, section 8 as "unfit for service".[4] It is unknown exactly how many gay and lesbian service members were given blue discharges under this regulation, but in 1946 the Army estimated that it had issued between 49,000 and 68,000 blue discharges, with approximately 5,000 of them issued to homosexuals, while the Navy's estimates of blue-discharge homosexuals was around 4,000. The period of time covered by these estimates is unclear.[5]"

        Hell, this continued well into Korea and even Vietnam, thus the schtick of Klinger and his constant attempt at Section 8 discharge in the popular TV show M*A*S*H.

        So to suggest that "the army goes ahead and drafts LGBTs when they need them" is misleading at best. Historically, even during the draft LGBTs were considered at the very least insane and rejected from service if recognized as such.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Actually it didn't go into effect until July 1, 2017. So it has been over THREE FULL WEEKS since trans were allowed in the military

    • Maybe because a trans brigade is charging Mass Media?

    • You could have said 1 year after the end of the segregation/miscegenation laws the same thing. Length of existence of a policy is not a good argument for or against or for its validity. The only valid argument I see are : 1) are the TG folk mentally fit enough ? 2) are the TG folk physically fit enough. (2) is answered already by exam at the start and (1) should be answered with time and possibly exams, or study on TG psychology/psychiatry. But nothing about time a policy existed makes for a valid argument.
  • Really twitter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by will_die ( 586523 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @04:05PM (#54885637) Homepage
    You say discrimination is wrong yet you actively censor things you don't like. Also don't you have a couple of sex discrimination lawsuit up against you?
  • US military (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @04:20PM (#54885783)

    So the US military will cease to be the target of more progressive social experiments for a few years. End of the world stuff right there; the virtuepocalypse is upon us!

  • by gachunt ( 4485797 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @04:30PM (#54885897)
    wait until $trump_decision != '';

    foreach $personality ( @leftwing )
    send_to_twitter( $personality . " is outraged at Trump for " . $trump_decision );
  • They've spent years and years in the military!

  • They already serve (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erexx23 ( 935832 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @04:32PM (#54885915)
    I am a Vet and a SGT. They already serve. They are in the service and are part of the human race. Ignorance is not bliss. Trumps myopic perspective ignorant at best and bigoted at worst.
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @04:38PM (#54885981) Homepage Journal


    As someone who spent seven years in active service, and trained many soldiers in Canada, worrying about someone's sexual orientation or whatever was dead last on my concerns. As in never spent a moment thinking about it, or caring about it.

    Are we sure he's sane?

    • We can be sure he not only has never been in the military, but he knows fuck-all about it. On the other hand, he thinks that POWs are losers. Maybe he thinks they should go all samurai and disembowel themselves before suffering the dishonor of capture, who knows what's going on under that cotton ball of his.

      I've never been in the military either, but my father was. That's one reason I wasn't. Not to piss him off, either. Not that I was ever big on his advice, but he definitely advised me not to join the arm

  • by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @08:22PM (#54887709)

    I can't stand Trump, think he's already the worst President in our history, but I have no problems with this decision. I'm an army brat, I was in ROTC, went to basic, had all the training to be a military officer (just never signed up), and I know 1st hand and personally of people being either kicked out or prohibited from joining for all kinds of medical issues, some of them ancient history, some of their mildly debilitation. The idea that someone is going to physically alter their body in extremely intrusive fashion that requires all kinds of lifetime medical and even surgical regimens to maintain them and the military is supposed to 1.) pay for it 2.) make concessions for the other commitments to that surgery; is a real head scratcher.

    My only problem is Trump obviously did it as another one of his twitter shiny bauble, public debate distractions.

    • by Gussington ( 4512999 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @01:23AM (#54888921)

      The idea that someone is going to physically alter their body in extremely intrusive fashion that requires all kinds of lifetime medical and even surgical regimens to maintain them and the military is supposed to 1.) pay for it...

      Seems like an odd statement considering what the military inflict on a lot of its employees. If you had to some up the US military in one sentence then physically altering bodies in an extremely intrusive fashion that requires all kinds of lifetime medical and even surgical regimens to maintain them, is about as accurate a statement as you can get.
      But I get your point, and I could buy into it if Trump provided some numbers to back up the logic, eg Trans medical costs are X which is negatively affecting our defence capability for reasons Y. But from what I've seen, were talking numbers of 1 tomahawk missle per year total, ie chicken feed.
      So it has nothing to costs (if it did I could support it), it has to do with the politics of division which the GOP are becoming addicted to. And this division is only weakening the country overall.

This login session: $13.99