Anyway, that's just another "advance" coming from America...
As a foreigner, I'm not too much concerned.

So that's the civilisation project of this country, an Army full of transgenders, after lesbian and gays ? ?
Woaoww, no wonder some other countries consider them as the enemy.

Their trainset, their rules.

Our trainset, these rules.

Constitution for the United States - We the People

The Bromide? It kicks-in about 40 years later.

So the US Army along with the rest of the US Government gets its orders via an insecure medium that everyone in the world can see? What next, does Trump tweet "Nuke North Korea" and away we go?
I reckon the only reason his Twitter account hasn't been hacked yet is that the hacker would have a hard job proving it, it's not like they could send anything that looked more odd than the ones the President already sends....

I really hope the FBI let him keep his account when he ends up in jail. I expect he'll take the world record for the most followers..

How many NATO member countries have a policy of banning or permitting homosexuals in the armed forces?

NATO members with official policy openly allowing LBGT service (in order of NATO membership):

Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
UK
USA
Greece
Germany
Spain
Poland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovenia
Albania
Croatia

NATO members disallowing LBGT service:

Turkey

Once again, the tide of history is slowly but surely eroding the bigotry and ignorance, but here we are in the US, determined to join forces with the paragons of virtue and reason such as Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. Saudi I can understand for chasing all the bribes and rampant corruption, Zimbabwe must be about emulating another geriatric tinpot dictator with a small dick and murderous ambition.

Exactly.
For goodness sake - if a person can fly an aircraft, shoot straight or sail, and is a good team player- who cares?!
Small minds preoccupied with what others do in the bedroom or the way they think about themselves.
All I care about is whether my fellows human beings do a good job. Couldn't give a **** if they wear a skirt or speak with a lisp...

Tartare, I agree.

However, the risk is that being able to do the job comes with a luggage of "I want...."

And it would seem the reason why this is being proposed. Economics.

If you can't see that Trump's tweet wasn't just about the "economics" of paying for medical procedures associated with Transition, you're missing a lot. The statement that TG will be unable to serve in the US military 'in any way' runs to a much deeper vein of orthodoxy which the devout VP Pence strongly believes in. This is more than money - which, incidentally, was over-inflated by DJT for effect when actually the real cost has been stated as peanuts, relatively.

I don't believe such voluntary procedures should be covered by TriCare etc, banning TG is an abhorrent statement. He'll pay for it in the polls and it just adds to his bucket of bat-sh*t crazy tweets.

Make TG pay for elective surgery, sure. Ban them? No. That's Hitler-esque, frankly.

Unfortunately a lot of people care and make their feelings known. We have a trans gender PC where I work but the roles she can do are limited because of people's prejudice and attitudes. She used to be a response officer but when she tried to go back to that she lasted one shift because of vitriol from the public which tested her patience almost to breaking point. There are also problems with colleagues. I'm pretty open minded but I was surprised by the hard nosed attitude of one of my colleagues when the topic of this officer came up in conversation. There is also the practical problem of which toilet or changing room to use as female PCs don't like to share with someone who they still think of as a man. I can't imagine that these problems and attitudes are any different among the armed forces than they are among the police and general public.

Godwin's law.

It's a bit drama queenesque to make that comparison.

No one's rights have been denied, no one is wearing a star on their sleeve. The military turns people away daily for various issues. Just as private employers hire on certain criteria, the military does as well.

I know I as an employer wouldn't hire someone that I knew or suspected wold be a draw on the company bottom line through elective surgery.

The military can't be all things to all.

West Coast,

When the Commander in Chief tells serving TG they cannot serve, with tenuous (at best) reasons cited, you have to wonder. I'm not saying anyone has a "right" to serve. You do so at the pleasure of the Government or Administration. What I am suggesting is that turning on already serving people is devisive and morally wrong. Last year he promised LGBT voters he had their backs - he supported them. Now he say his "Generals and Military Experts" have advised him to boot them out and lock the gate; to the huge alarm and surprise of those very Generals

Skydiver brings up a situation that was part of the North Carolina House Bill 2 controversy that raged in US Politics not so long ago.

We in North Carolina who supported HB 2 were accused of all sorts of evil acts, thoughts, and actions.

What the resistance was all about was the "Self Identifying" concept.

In our view....a Law that is written as was the Charlotte City Ordinance was...that provided for any individual, to "Self Identify" (with no requirement for clinical or other professional evidence) at a moments notice was dangerous to the safety and well being and privacy of others.

By that....we saw the Ordinance presenting a situation where a sexual deviant (not a legitimate Transgendered Person) could use the Ordinance as a means to enter Restrooms, Shower Facilities, Locker/Dressing Rooms etc....by merely uttering the words of "I am a Transgendered Man who thinks of myself as being Female." and that bothered us.

Argue how you want about Transgender Rights....but one must also remember there are other members of Society who also have Rights to privacy and security from sexual predators. (Again....not Transgenders as a Class of Folk within our Society).

The conflict is how to afford both groups protection under a single Law.

The radicals on both sides of the issue have caused it to become a very divisive one.

If your daughter or wife were using a public restroom and four or five rowdy guys barged into the place, using the Charlotte Ordinance language, stated they self identified as being TG....under that Ordinance there was nothing you could do (legally).....and therein lay the problem with the City Ordinance that kicked off the Fuss that resulted in the State Law (which in North Carolina trumps City Ordinances).

It cost a Governor an Election and certainly caused a lot of discord that was un-neccessary.

That the leader of the Charlotte Movement was a convicted Sex Offender did not help the LGBT groups PR campaign attacking HB 2.

LGBT Chamber president steps down after criticism of his sex-offender status | Charlotte Observer

As when President Clinton made his attempt at an executive order before Don't ask Don't tell, President Trump will be advised that Congress sets the rules for the DoD. He's trying to change a rule, so Congress will be involved.

We'll have to wait and see. The rule being overturned was an executive rule made by Obama. Trump has the power to change that rule. When (and if) Congress weighs in and creates a LAW either allowing or disallowing transgenders, then Trump won't have the power to change it. Truman for example issued EO 9981 independent of Congress, which effectively desegregated the military,

And the notion that transgenders serving in the military is a civil rights issue as was blacks serving in the military is beyond absurd. This is a medical issue. There are many (dozens?) of medical conditions that preclude a person from serving in the military. Those are no more civil rights issues than this one. Further, transgenders have a very high suicide rate and many other mental health issues. Putting such people into a highly stressful combat environment is not a good thing for either the transgender person, or his/her/its/their fellow soldiers/comrades.

The military exists to kill people and blow stuff up (or threaten to do so), not to be a laboratory for social experiments.

Actually you are wrong.

Black people have average IQ some 15-20 points lower than Caucasians (who in turn have average IQs some 5-10 points lower than north-east Asians (Japanese/Korean/Manchurian Chinese - see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence). Blacks were originally excluded from military service in many branches of US military due to their perceived lower intelligence and perceived inaptitude for military service. That exclusion was clearly racist and unfair - since they are part of US society and should be allowed to defend their society - but at least the racist logic prevalent at the time had some sort of scientific justification.

There is absolutely no scientific justification to exclude transgender people. Their average IQs and physical abilities are no different from non-transgender people.

Which is probably directly linked to their treatment by society, something their integration into the military may well help.