Pentagon ‘Cherry Pick’ studies to support the transgender service member ban, Judge says

A federal judge on Wednesday morning grills the lawyer of the Department of Justice, about the validity of the Pentagon’s Transgender Service member, repeatedly suggested that the policy depends on a flawless understanding of gender dysforia.

The new Pentagon policy to separate transgender American service members from the army is facing its first legal testing as US District Judge Ana Rayes has stopped the policy from being implemented to issue an order.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Rayes said that the government “clearly misrepresented” and “Cherry” wrongly claimed scientific studies that transgender soldiers reduce the readiness and lethargy of the military.

While Judge Rayes has not yet given a formal decision, he repeatedly suggested that the policy incorrectly targets a section of people that dislikes the Trump administration.

“The question in this case is whether under equal protection rights, the army bears each American under the fixed process segment of fifth amendment, if the army can do this … and target a specific medical issue that affects a specific group that the administration has disintegrated,” he said.

Judge Rayes also suppressed DOJ Attorney Jason Manian to identify any other similar medical issues, which has inspired a similar response from the Defense Department.

Judge Rayes asked, “Identify another time for me in recent history, where the army has excluded a group of people to disqualify, as I could not think of one,” Judge Reyes asked.

Manian replied that the army implemented a uniform policy for soldiers, who refused to take the Covid -19 vaccine, motivating an incredible judge Reyes to ask anyone to extend their hands in the gallery, if they were found.

“Many people extend their hands, right?” Judge Rayes said. “All different types of people … so it was not just for the purpose of getting rid of a group of people.”

The plaintiff has argued that the DOD policy – which was finalized in late February and prevents most transgender service members from serving with certain exceptions – violates the right to fifth amendment for equal security and causes irreparable loss by defaming transgender soldiers, disrupting the unit cosmic and weakens the army.

The plaintiff argued, “This case is a test of the main democratic principle that makes our country worthy of rescue – that every person is of equal dignity and value and deserves equal protection of laws,” the plaintiff is argued.

The lawyers along with the Department of Justice have defended the policy by arguing that the court should not interfere in military decisions, describing gender dysforia as a situation that “causes clinically significant crisis or loss in other important areas of social, business or human functioning.”

Government lawyers argued, “DOD has been cautious about service especially by individuals with mental health conditions, given the unique mental and emotional stresses of military service,” the government lawyers argued.

During a hearing last month, Judge Rayes – a biden appointment who was the first LGBT judge in the DC District Court – indicated deep doubts with the government’s claim that the members of the transgender service reduced the intensity or readiness of the army, although he refused to interfere until DOD finalized his policy.

When the policy was formalized last month, it quickly ordered the government to clarify the major principles of its policy, which involves identifying the gender dyphoria and the identification of “mental health barriers” which struggles with military standards of “honesty, humility and integrity”.

He also raised doubts about the claims of the government about the exceptions to the policy, recently the DOD social media posts on the court’s dock, saying “transgender soldiers are disqualified from service without exemption.”

The hearing was held between Judge Rayes and the Department of Justice amidst rapid hostile relations.

Judge Rayes, after a hearing in the case last month, collided with a DOJ lawyer, the Department of Justice filed a complaint with an appeal, which he said he was “hostile and egoistic misconduct” of Reius.

Chad Mizle, Chief of Staff of Attorney General Palm Bandy, alleged that Ryes demonstrated a political bias, compromised on the dignity of the proceedings and improperly inquired about his religious beliefs on a DOJ Attorney.

“At least, this case further investigates whether these incidents represent a pattern of misconduct, requiring more important therapeutic measures,” Mizle wrote.