June 21, 2025 • 45 mins
Trans Chief Warrant Officer and Black Hawk Pilot in the Virginia Army National Guard Jo Ellis joins me for a conversation about Trump's ban on transgender people in the military and why she says people like her shouldn't be kicked out.
Check out her podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@TransNormalPodcast
Follow her on X: https://x.com/JoEllisReally
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I transitioned while it was allowed, and now being told
because I did that, there's absolutely no exception that I
can stay. You told me I could. I followed policy.
Now you're telling me because I did that, I'm disqualified,
which is kind of like a really jacked up conundrum
to be put in.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
All Right, guys, I'm super excited to talk today with
Joe Ellis about her experience as a transgender member of
the military and Trump's military band. We're going to get
into the specifics and debate some of the justifications that
have been put forward for it. But Joe Ellis is
a chief warrant officer and Blackhawk pilot in the Virginia
Army National Guard and the co host of the Transnormal
(00:43):
podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Joe,
thanks for coming on the show.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate
this opportunity.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Of course, Look, I've seen you speak out in the
news and on some high profile media appearances that you've
done over the last several months as kind of the
saga with trans military ban and discussion over all of
that has played out, and your story is really interesting,
but just for viewers so they can understand who you
(01:12):
are as a person before we even get into any
of the politics. Just tell us about your service in
your career in the military.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Sure, I joined the Virginia Army National Guard in two
thousand and nine as a helicopter mechanic and then from
there as an enlisted person. I went to Iraq in
twenty eleven and deployed and served as a door gunner,
so I would operate the machine gun out the side
of a black Hawk and then had a couple other missions,
(01:39):
one in Guatemala and then another one in Kuwait. And
then in twenty twenty I applied to become a warrant
officer and go to flight school for the Army, And
so I went down to Fort Rucker, Alabama and completed
eighteen months of training there and became a black Hawk
pilot and a warren officer.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Well, first off, thank you for your service. And I
really mean, I'm not setting aside all the debate over
in the military and everything. I really do appreciate that
and anyone who serves in our armed forces. Where in
this process did you transition? Were you already trans before
you entered the military? Was this partially through your service.
(02:17):
Tell us about that.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
So this was most recently actually, So I transitioned in
late twenty twenty three is when I started the process,
and I finished in early twenty twenty four. So I'm
fairly new as a transperson and coming out into the
world and everything. Before that, I lived as a man
my entire life leading up to that. So I was about,
(02:40):
I guess three thirty four when I started taking steps
and I'm thirty five.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Now, okay, and what is the transition entailed for you? Precisely?
Speaker 1 (02:50):
So for me it was hormones and then I did
a face surgery.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Okay. And you still take the hormones now, yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Yeah, I still take them, so just estrogen. I just
take the tablets.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
I don't mean to be invasive. I only ask because
I know you're fine. I'm the conversation.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Yeah, I'm an open book.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, So tell us about what's happening to you now,
because I know that you have been impacted by the
Trumpet administration's decision to dismiss people from the military who
identify as transgender.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Sure, so since i'm National Guard, I have a different
timeline than active duty. Active duty was given until June
sixth to decide conveniently on D Day to decide if
they were going to voluntarily separate or wait until the
involuntary process. And those two processes are just you can
(03:44):
self identify as being trans, which makes it a lot
easier on the military to figure out who you are,
and then you get some extra separation pay and some
other things like that. So it's very incentivized for trans
people to do that process. The other option is involuntary,
which is where you wait to be discovered. So they
(04:04):
have to do that. They either come through your medical
records or they have given authority to certain commanders to
look at social media postings and kind of hunt us
down and identify us as trans so that way they
can get rid of us, because, believe it or not,
the Department of the Defense doesn't track who is trans
and who is not. They don't even have a number
(04:24):
of how many of us are serving. When they were
at the court case, they couldn't tell the judge how
many of us are serving or provide any evidence to that.
And so I'm kind of in that process right now.
I am not going to volunteer to separate. It's pretty
obvious that I'm trans because I've unfortunately been thrust into
(04:45):
the spotlight, and some of the flight requirements I have
to do is I have to disclose what medications I'm
on and certain things, so everyone knows in my unit.
But I'm not going to elect to leave sooner. I'm
going to wait until they force me out because I
believe firmly that my service records over the last sixteen
years speak to my honorable service and the fact that
(05:08):
I am deployable and can do the job today. I
want to see that in writing that regardless of all
of this evidence, this person still isn't qualified to serve
and we want to kick this person out. I want
to see that process happen.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Yeah, I mean that's a choice. I understand you have
two options. Some people might choose to take the better
benefits and just go along with it. Some people might
choose I'm an obstinate person, So if I disagreed with
something that was happening, like if I was getting in
trouble at a job, I would not like resign and
walk away. I'd be like, no, you have to fire me,
and I'm going to stay. So I setting even aside
(05:43):
the debate, I can relate to that aspect of what
you said has being trans and obviously, I mean, you
only have your perspective, which is inherently kind of biased
towards your view of things. But has it really disrupted
your ability to meaningfully serve or achieve the amias and
duties to which you were employed.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
It hasn't. In fact, it's made it easier to do
certain things because now i can focus more on the
job at hand, and I'm not dealing with untreated you know,
mental issues or any kind of medical condition. Now it
can actually just move forward because I was diagnosed with
gender dysphoria, and the steps I took for my transition
(06:25):
alleviated those symptoms, and now I'm asymptomatic, So you could
say my dysphoria has been resolved, and so therefore I'm
a more effective person because I'm no longer dealing with
an issue. Similarly to someone who had depression and maybe
they're asymptomatic now they don't. That would be you know,
a more capable soldier going to war or flying an
(06:45):
aircraft like I do. And so that's been my experience
is is I've kind of come alive and in my
unit and folks have noticed that I'm just a better
person overall.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
So it's interesting to me that you mentioned gender dysphoria
because I've definitely we was going to bring this up.
So to be clear, I've actually been on the record
for years in opposition to the idea of categorically removing
trans people from the military. I've always thought that there
should just be some sort of case by case analysis
of people. And by the way, I think, regardless of
(07:16):
how you feel about this debate, it is crazy that
the military doesn't track this and doesn't have good numbers
on this, because it seems like relevant information just regardless.
But so I've actually never supported the trans military ban,
even though I often take positions that are like against
transactivism or whatever on many issues, I've agreed with them
(07:39):
over the years to some extent on that issue that
it is not necessary to just categorically remove trans people
from the military. I think anyone who I've always said,
like individual basis, anyone who can be declared fit to
serve and commit all the purposes, whether the trans or not.
Maybe that would rule out a lot of trans people
who have serious mental health issues. I don't know, but
(08:00):
if you have people who are fit to do the job.
I've always been against just kicking them out because they
identify as trans. That said, a lot of people don't
view it as bad, they view it as reasonable. There
are a number of reasons that get cited. So just
for the purposes of this conversation a little bit, I'm
in a Devil's Advocate with you, and I guess what
I'll ask just a series of clarifying questions. Do you
(08:22):
believe that gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
I believe it's a mental health condition that should be treated,
and I know the illness. The word illness brings a
little bit of a stigma, just like disability does. So
maybe that's semantics, but yes, it is. It is definitely
a thing.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I say it without stigma. I know what you're saying.
How yeah, I'm not saying that with stigma. Mental health
condition could be another way of saying sure.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
So yeah, we agree. I agree that it is in fact,
to transition to the military, you have to have it,
you have to be diagnosed, and you actually have to
go through a whole gate system that is similar to
the the pre everyone can be trans thing in the
public when you actually had to go through mental health
therapy and like all these steps, and you have to
prove real lived experience. So the military still keeps those rules,
(09:13):
and they actually have those for people transitioning, and so
I actually agree more with the military process of transitioning
than I do the public process.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Yeah, no, that makes sense. That gets to kind of
a separate issue. But I agree with you that this
stuff needs to be gate kept a lot more than
it has been. We've talked about that on the podcast
in many other contexts. But what I'll guess I guess
I'll say then, though, is my understanding, and you can
correct me if I'm wrong, is that if you have
any series of medical conditions, and again I'm not saying
(09:45):
this with stigma. If you have diabetes, if you have anxiety,
if you have depression, you can't serve in the military.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
So there's two standards for that. There is those who
are signing up for the military with those conditions actively,
and then there are those who had a history of
it that are signing up. And then there are those
that are currently serving that might develop those conditions while serving,
And each one is treated differently. So if you're trying
(10:13):
to sign up and you are on SSRIs or any
kind of heavy like psychmeds, the chances of you being
allowed in are very slim. Now, if you're signing up
and it's been five years since you've been on SSRIs,
there's a good chance you'll be able to serve. Now,
if I am serving and I go to war and
come back and get diagnosed with PTSD or depression, I'm
(10:36):
not just kicked out because I need to be put
on an SSRI. I am retained because there's value in
keeping me in my experience, but also the cost to
hire someone in and train them and all of that,
and so there's a whole different mechanism for those that
are currently serving.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
So let's take these one at a time, then, because
I'm really glad you clarified that, because I honestly don't
know the ins and outs of it. But so, if
for example, I have an anxiety disorder, I take a
medication for it actively, I know that I could not
enlist in the military, or it would be almost impossible
(11:13):
for me to do that while serving. In the same way,
why is it different to exclude people from signing up
specifically for the military who have a gender dysporia diagnosis
and need medication to treat it. Isn't it the same
thing as all sorts of medical conditions that we routinely
disqualify people for.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
It could be so the idea of someone signing up
is I think is different. Right. So, if you sign
up and you have untreated gender dysphoria, I think that's
a serious issue right now. If you've been treated and
you're asymptomatic, and you can show a standard of hey,
I'm no longer expanc these symptoms, I'm well adjusted, things
(11:54):
like that, right then I think there could be a
pathway based on what type of skills they might bring
to the table, or what type of medicine they're on.
If they're on tablets versus injectables some people, maybe they're
not on any hormones. You never know, right, So I
think there's, like you said, initially, a case by case
approach would be the thing that makes the most sense,
(12:15):
because it's not as simple. It's not black and white
like most things, unfortunately. And so if I write, man, yeah,
go ahead.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
If I had had serious depression and I'd take an SSRIs,
but it had been five years and I was no
longer on any medication, would I be able to enlist
in the military.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
I would have to double check that for sure, but
I know there is a time limit. Just like when
you're trying to apply for a flight physical to fly
for the FAA. There's all these criteria that are just
like if you if you haven't been on it for
five years and you have an evaluation that shows you
are good to go and clear. Also the severity, so
(12:54):
usually if you've ever attempted suicide or anything like that,
like the chances are slummed to none. Right, It's all
like shades of gray on if you can meet a
criteria to get an exception to join. Either way, you'll
still need an exception with a history of that kind
of depression or disorder, but the exception may be granted
(13:16):
and they have that just like they have it for
people currently serving that might have diabetes. They get an
exception to keep serving if they can meet certain criteria.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Yeah, I mean, I think that would make a lot
more sense in a way to treat gender dysphoria in
their armed services. But I guess so the question is like,
if you're a person with gender dysphoria who actively relies
on like estrogen or a hormone hormone therapy to treat
your condition of gender dysphoria, and you're not going to
(13:47):
stop taking it, right because you need it to treat
that condition, and you seek to enlist in the military.
Would that be legitimate grounds in the same way that like,
my anxiety disorder is currently legitimate grounds to deny somewhat
admission to the armed services, In the same way that
my anxiety disorder is currently very well treated by my medication,
but I have to stay on it or it would
(14:09):
get bad again. So what do you think about that
specific scenario.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
I'm not entirely sure, right, because I think I can
see both arguments, right. I think I would go down
to can you deploy to an austere environment with that medication? Like?
So are they tablets so you could stick twelve months
in your pocket, right and it's not going to go
(14:34):
bad because it doesn't have to be refrigerated all of
those things. Then probably yeah, you could let that person in.
Or are they someone like me who I haven't had
bottom surgery? So if I lost access to estrogen for
periods of time during a deployment or whatever, I would
be like physically okay, Like I wouldn't be absent of
(14:54):
hormones that I need because my body would start producing
testosterone again. And so while I would go through maybe
a couple moodswings and stuff like, it's so minor that
I think, Like I said, there's exceptions, I think that
could be made, but I think I would agree that
coming in with a condition is a lot different than
while you're serving you develop a condition.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
What the Trump administration is doing is taking people who
are actively serving now who are trans and presumably have
gender dysphoria then, and regardless of their particular circumstance, regardless
whether they're doing a great job, everyone in their team
loves them, there's no issue at all kicking them out
of the military. Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
That's correct, And that's why I have such an issue
with it, not only because I served. I mean, I
serve part time. I'm a patriot, and it has nothing
to do with finances, like I've just always wanted to serve.
But I have such an issue with it because Trump
banned one point zero under his first term. By the
time they went through the courts and kind of got settled,
(15:59):
ended up having sceptions for those that were currently serving
that it already transitioned while it was allowed, And so
in my case, I transitioned while it was allowed, and
now being told because I did that, there's absolutely no
exception that I can stay. And so it's kind of
like bait and switch, right Like, you told me I
could I followed policy. Now you're telling me because I
did that, I'm disqualified, which is kind of like a
(16:20):
really checked up conundrum to be put in. So that's
kind of how I feel about it, is like there
should be exceptions for us that have already transitioned, that
are meeting the standard that can deploy. You know, a
lot of us have been doing it for years and
haven't had issues.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
I No, I agree with that, and that puts me
at odds with some of my audience or followers who
kind of just think, no, you know, being again, to
speak crudely, they'll say, being trans is a mental disorder,
and people with mental disorders can't be in the military,
and that's an oversimplification. But I again, I think there's
a categorical exclusionary element to this that feels performative, that
(17:01):
feels culture warrior. I mean the announcement that the Trump
administration did of this ban suggested, and this was totally unnecessary.
They could have just announced the policy without this. They
included a statement suggesting that trans people are like liars
and they can't be trusted to serve in the military
because they lie about what gender they are. Now, that
(17:24):
just seems like very insulting to say, like trans people
are just like fundamentally dishonest and can't serve. I think
if a trans person thinks they have literally changed their
biological sex, then they are confused. But I think a
lot of people who identify as trans don't even necessarily
think that. They just think they have gender dysphoria and
(17:44):
living as the opposite gender will make them happy and
resolve that. So I found I took issue with that.
Just the actual policy aside. The way it was announced
felt gratuitous and cruel to me for sure.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
And you know, it's not a medical decision when not
being discharged as such, we're being discharged a national security concern.
So we're being discharged under the code of Juliet delta quilo.
That's the same code they discharge gay people under, and
it's the same code they would discharge someone mishandling classified information,
and so the current policy unless they change it right now,
(18:20):
it says when you go to separate these people, you
will use JDK as the code, and which will impact
my ability to get a clearance later if I decide
to apply for a job that needs a national security clearance,
they're going to look at my military records be like, well,
you're discharged under a national security code, like why would
we trust you to work here? Right? And so on
(18:42):
top of that, if they're saying it's it's medically disqualifying,
they're not offering us the medical separation process that other
people who develop a condition that they would be discharged
under would get. So if I broke my leg and
could not recover, I would be medically separated under a
medical board, and I would get certain benefits and certain
due process under that process, and it would be treated
(19:06):
honorably and discharged as a medical just like my brother.
Actually he got discharged for medical reasons. But that's not
what's applying to me. So you're saying it's a medical condition,
but then you're discharging me under a code and under
a process that exists for people who fail their PT test,
for people who like I said, mishanna classified information things
(19:28):
like that, Like they're not even using the process that
exists for medical because it would give us a little
bit more benefits if they did it that way. So
they're think.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
It's being cheap skates about it.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
I don't know if it's being cheap skates, but it's
inherently animous when you're saying all trans people under this
horrible language. And oh, by the way, it's also a
medical condition that's disqualifying, but we're not going to give
you the medical process. We're going to give you an
admin process that we would normally give for people who
can't meet a PT test or heighten weight or can't
(20:00):
graduate a school on time. And then we're also going
to discharge you with a code that says it's a
national security concern.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
So will this be considered a dishonorable discharge?
Speaker 1 (20:11):
It'll still be honorable, which is even weirder, right because
it still isn't quite It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Yeah, it sounds like it wouldn't be. I mean, obviously
I'm not familiar with this stuff, but.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
No, so I'm going to assume them if they discharge
me with that code because it hurts my ability to
get a future job if I need a clearance.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Again, that's fair. I mean, because there's lots of jobs
that you might work in where you would want a
security clearance. And whether somebody thinks you should be discharged
from the military because of gender disweard being a mental
condition or not. I mean, you didn't leak classified information, right,
you're not.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
I did not add anyone to a signal chat.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Yeah, you didn't add anyone to a signal chat either. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
I mean, I've got seventeen years in the IT field
because I'm part time military, I also work in IT
and I'm also in Virginia. So there's a lot of
jobs that would need a security clearance that I could get,
and with this code, I'm going to have to justify
it to every future employer why I got that code.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yeah, that's a real harm, and I think you should
sue them over that, So, honestly, good for you. What
I'm drawing from this conversation, honestly is that I, unlike
you know, maybe the left wing transactivist, I do not
really think that anyone who supports this, the idea of
a trans military band, must just be evil and hateful
(21:30):
and bigoted. Like, I think there's a legitimate conversation to
be had when what you're talking about is something that
is closely intertwined with a serious mental condition. But to me,
the way that Trump administration has done this, the acerbic
and like rude nature of the rhetoric attached to it,
what you're telling me about the administrative way it's being done,
(21:53):
I think people, even if they support the idea, should
pause and reflect on that and ask themselves whether any
of that is really necessary or whether that's a valid
way to treat people who have stepped up and sought
to serve our country just because they also happen to
be transgender. That's one thing I don't really understand about.
You know, it's funny. I don't know. You're probably not
(22:13):
very familiar with it, with my content or my work,
but I've been simultaneously attacked as transphobic for my whole
career from the left and then as like a woke
pro trans lib from like the far right, basically my
entire career. Because I don't actually hate trans people. I
have no problem with adults living their best lives. But
obviously I have you know, what they would call like
(22:34):
heterodox or far right fringe positions on a lot of
trans issues in the LGBT community. So I'm kind of
the enemy of everyone on this. Yeah, I've seen you
poke the bear a little bit. I do a couple
questions that also come to mind that I think we
should address for people. What about the idea that having,
for example, like a trans woman like yourself serve in
(22:58):
the military infringes on the privacy of female's serving. So like,
do you use private spaces for female service members.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
In the military. Yes, because under the policies that existed,
when you change your gender marker in the military, you
must use everything that aligns to that gender marker. So
once the gender marker has changed, which is typically at
the end of your transition process, once that gets flipped,
that's when you're no longer allowed to use the male stuff.
(23:29):
You have to use the female stuff. And so because
it's a very binary system in the military, and so yeah,
that's what I do.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Now.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
There are times when military is co ed, and like
there's certain deployments you're on, or there's certain training environments
where you are co located with you know, mixed genders,
like it's going to be male and female living in
the same room, using the same bathrooms, using the same showers.
So there are times when that exists. So it's not
like it's it's abnormal for that to happen, but yes,
(24:00):
that's pretty much how it works. Once it's changed in
the system, then that's when you're supposed to adhere to
those grooming standards, those uniforms, those bathrooms, everything.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
And does that involve situations that like, I mean, because
some of the problem with the shared space stuff is
that legit transsexual people won't be a problem, right, Like
they're not going to go walk around a women's spa
with their male genitalia out right like they're going to be,
if anything, not want to display that and will be
very private. Maybe they'll change in a stall like actual
(24:32):
people like that won't be the problem, And maybe it's
not as much of an issue in the military because
what you're saying is like there's a whole real process
you have to go through, Whereas in California you look
at the WII spa, right like, they just throw the
door open. Anybody who says they're a woman can go
in the women's room. Then you have males just walking
around with their ding dongs out. That's a real problem.
But I guess what I'm wondering is, like, is there
(24:52):
a legitimate concern for women's service members that allowing trans
women in particular to serve as as women for all
intents and purposes means they'll have to shower with males
and or change in front of males or other things
that might cause people legitimate discomfort.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
There might be discomfort for sure. So I don't want
to silence or negate women biological whatever term you want
to use, non trans women. It's some of mest of
our language these days. Anyway, we don't want to I
don't want to discount that real concern. I will say, though,
(25:33):
if you look at the data in the military, most
of the big sexual assault and issues that have happened
have not been because men were trans women were you know,
sleeping near other women. Like It's always been predatory men
that stormed into women's spaces, right, So if you look
(25:54):
at that, I think it was the Navy back in
the nineties they had a huge scandal, you name it, right,
It's a lot of men on men and men on
women like predatory happening in the military. When it comes
to sexual assault, and I haven't heard of any cases
where a trans person has been you know, the predatory person.
(26:17):
You know, We've been serving for tennish years now openly
in the military, and that just hasn't happened because it's
our numbers are so small. So yes, there's probably a
bad apple that will snink through somehow. They'll go through
the entire process of transitioning in the military, which is
like any other DMV government process. It's a pain in
the butt, lots of red tape, and then eventually you
(26:39):
get your gender market change a year plus later, and
it's like, now, I can't wait to violate someone's space.
It just it just doesn't seem logical. But I do
agree that I can understand that a woman would feel
uncomfortable with the idea of a man being there. But
I think when we shift our focus to a trans
(27:00):
sexual is not quite the same as a man.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah. Well, and it's interesting because I mean there's even
a theoretical scenario where they and this would have its
own problems. I'm not even endorsing this where they said, okay, well,
for the purpose of intimate spaces, trans women will have
to change with the men or change with the women
or something that's far short of kicking them out under
(27:23):
a code used to like kick out people who leak
classified files. I mean that to me, it seems like
the nuance of this subject is not represented in the
current Republican policies. Now, I'm also not sure and I
want to get your thoughts on this that it's represented
in kind of like the left wing trans take, which
(27:43):
is that the military should have non binary Visibility Day
and that every gender under the sun is legitimate and
just aoka. I mean, I think some of the backlash
that has resulted in things like the trans military ban
wouldn't have happened if they hadn't pushed so far on
some of this stuff.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Yeah, sports and kids, those are the two issues I think.
I think the military had been fine if it wasn't
for the sports and kids issues, and those issues were
very effective in the Trump campaign. And look, I come
from a conservative religious household. I was homeschooled and my
dad worked for Pat Robertson at the seven hundred Club,
(28:24):
you know, Christian broadcasting network. My parents voted for Trump
twice and even my dad was like, well, I didn't
think you would actually go and kick out service members
that are capable of serving like you. He always thought
that it would be a level headed approach of we'll
get rid of the bad ones and keep the good ones.
And it just doesn't make a lot of sense. And so, yeah,
(28:46):
when it comes to women and women's sports, there's a
huge fairness concern, Like trans women generally have an advantage overall.
Now there's gray areas of when or what kind of
puberty they experience and all of that. And then the
same thing with kids, like there has to be serious
guardrails for children, maybe age requirements. I don't think all
(29:10):
out bands make sense either, But then again, do whatever
you want is not a great policy either.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Yeah, well, we don't need to get into that. I
tend to at this point support bands because we don't
have to get in the whole issue. But I get
what you're saying, how do what you want is not okay,
and that's been, unfortunately the status quo. I think the
argument against bands would be a lot the argument for
bands would be a lot weaker if it was still
(29:37):
this extremely guardrailed process that only a tiny percentage of
people are doing. I think people and people like myself
who are averse to government bands in general end up
much more amenable to the idea of a ban when
the prospect of doing it in any sort of reasonable
or limited way, or trusting any of the authorities medical, scientific,
(30:00):
public health who are responsible in these areas is become
totally discredited in my view. But that's not even fair.
Let's not even get into that whole aside. I mean,
one other issue that people think of when it comes
to trans in the military is additional costs. That the
idea that when you're in the military, you get your
(30:21):
healthcare covered by taxpayers, and that will mean I believe
there's some transition surgeries that people get paid for by
serving in the military. I know you paid for yours yourself,
But is that a legitimate concern that people have. I
know it's a relatively small, like, it's a tiny piece
of the pie in terms of the massive military budget,
but is it fair for people to not want that
stuff paid for on tax paradigm?
Speaker 1 (30:43):
It's fair for people to not want that. But I
think sometimes when we say taxpayer, we forget that the
person receiving it is also a taxpayer, and my tax
dollars shouldn't go to your thing. I think there's a
language issue. There are tax dollars. We're all paying taxes,
like trans people are being paid by the taxpayer to
serve like regardless of what medical care they receive. And so,
(31:06):
you know, my biggest complaint with that argument is that
nobody cares that our tax dollars goes to thirty seven
million dollars more towards viagra for the military. Tell me
how viagra is a necessity for combat troops. Now, it's fine.
I don't have a problem with it. Like if you
need for PTSD or whatever people to be able to
(31:27):
get it up, great, Like, doesn't bother me with thirty
seven million dollars more on viagra than gender from me
in care. And so, if it's really a cost thing,
we got to look at the DoD budget as a whole,
which has never passed an audit, like the Pentagon's never
passed an audit. There's a lot of issues there to
go after something that costs, on average per trans soldier
less than one thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Yeah. I remember when I wrote about this years ago,
when I was critical of the band, I was like, listen,
the cost thing you're talking about such a tiny needle
pennies such a massive haystaff it really is. And also,
you know what if the if the cost was the concern,
you could simply say, Okay, we're not going to cover that.
(32:09):
And so like trans people have to pay for their
surgeries out of pocket, but we won't kick them out
of the military and.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Natically and yeah, and people joining the military under when
it was allowed the last four years had to sign
a statement saying that they had completed all of their
surgeries before they were allowed to join. That's a very
small detail that people don't know about that you had
to swear that yes, I have genertusphoria and it's been resolved,
and I am trans and I am joining the military,
(32:36):
and I and I promise you I don't intend to
get any additional surgeries.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
That's interesting. I did not know that. Yeah, I've covered
this issue pretty closely. Yeah, well, yeah, I mean I
think that's fair. I have no issue with like insurance
or stuff covering hormone therapy or other things. I think
there's an argument that some of the more the surgeries,
there's an argument that it's cosmetic essentially, I mean, right,
and the Army covers that does the Army cover, for example,
(33:05):
like a female service member who just wants a breast augmentation.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Easier than a trans service member.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Okay, well, I mean that's a.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
Better active duty When your active duty you get one
cosmetic surgery a year. It could be light bo it
could be skin reduction, it could be breast, it could be. Really,
the Army spins more on veneers than they do gender
framing care. Like, it's just so goofy to me that
some people think that we're driving up the budget like crazy,
and yeah, like if I develop gender dye for it,
(33:36):
or I come to the realization that's what I have
and I get diagnosed while I'm serving, I feel like
that should be the same as someone else who decides
they want breasts or someone else. I think that's covered, right, Yeah,
it is, it is right, and people just don't realize that.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
So I guess what I was thinking about was more
like with private health insurance, something like a boob job
is not covered, right, So the idea that, for example,
a female who wants larger breasts is not covered by
health insurance in many cases. However, a trans person who
is male to female who wants large breasts sometimes that
(34:15):
is covered by insurance. The discrepancy there, I can see
why people have an issue with, But like I said,
I agree with you, the cost thing is kind of
a distraction. Yeah. The other the.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
CIS argument is interesting too, what you just made because
private insurance will cover breast augmentations for CIS women who
have had misseectomies due to cancer. So if you say
gender dysphoria is a medical condition that needs to be
treated with a breast augmentation, couldn't you make the same argument.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
You could. I think part of the problem is that
the trends advocating for that. You absolutely could. No, I
hear your point, But part of the problem is that
the transactivist movement has argued that trans is in a
medical condition, and I agree with that, anyone who feels
different inside is trans. And so like when trans was
(35:03):
just a medical condition, it was way easier to defend
this stuff now that it's some like social fad that
includes I don't know if you saw this on my
ex because we follow each other, a video of this
this dad who says I'm a queer parent, and it's
just a dude who's married to a woman who has
kids and he's just a man and he feels non
(35:26):
binary on the inside, that considered trans now, so like
then it's watered down to the point where when trans
was just a statistically very rare medical condition that some
people experienced. I don't have a problem with that, and
I don't even have a problem with them getting the
things they need covered. I wonder whether things like surgeries
(35:49):
really have good enough data to truly justify them as
a medical expense. That's a whole subject that would have
to be researched. But if it's there, then okay, especially
if similarly situated stuff is covered. Again, though I do
think when it comes to the military question, it's kind
of a moot point, because okay, just don't pay for
surgeries then, and hormones are not expensive.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
Yeah, if the Trump administration came in and said, all right,
we're gonna let you serve, but here's how you get
an exception, you had to have already completed a transition
under the old policy, and any surgeries you want from
here on out you have to pay for. We'll cover
your hormones. Cool, or even further, you have to stay
(36:32):
with the mails and use mail bathrooms. I don't want that,
but that would those would be terms where I would
continue serving and I wouldn't I wouldn't get out over that.
You know, it's not the best conditions, but like it's
some sort of middle ground, and right now we're getting none.
We're getting no exceptions. The only exception you can get
is if you had gender dysphoria, but you never tried
(36:53):
to transition and you're stable enough in your biological sex
to keep serving. So the only people that can stay
are people who have untreated gender dysphoria.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
That's that's strange. The whole thing is very strange. Yeah,
A couple of topics, A couple like just kind of
other things I want to touch on is I've talked
about this on my show. There is an insane problem
with like right wing misinformation on x and on Twitter
and just kind of people spreading crazy stuff that is
not true. We saw this about the Minnesota shootings. We've
(37:25):
seen this about so many things. You were caught up
in that in a very unusual way. Tell us the
story of what the heck happened to you where you
had to release a proof of life video to the internett.
Speaker 1 (37:41):
Yeah, I wrote an essay right after the executive order
came out about the trans Military band to my former
boss Michael Smirkanish, who has a Serious XM program and
he's on CNN on Saturday mornings. He said he reached
out to me privately, said hey, I know you've you've
transitioned and you're serving. I would love to humanize this
issue because I don't think many people realize who the
(38:03):
people are that are going to get kicked out. And
I thought about it, and I was always very private
about everything because I was still serving and I didn't
want to get mixed up in anything or become politicized.
But I was like, you know what, this is my
chance to write a quick essay and appeal to people
as I'm a patriot, I've served, I want to keep serving.
And that's pretty much what the whole essay was about.
(38:24):
A little bit about my background and story, but that
was it. And what a coincidence that the data that
published and I appeared on SERIOUSXM with Michael stomer Conish
that evening was when the crash happened in DC between
the Airliner and the black Hawk, and so I had
a fresh essay as a transperson Blackhawk pilot from Virginia
(38:45):
on the interwebs, including what ended up getting released as
a podcast from Serious XM of my segment, and then
by a day and a half later, it was being
rumored that because of the DEI comments, the president had
made that the third Pilot must be a DEI higher
and to the Internet that became woman or trans or
(39:07):
something right, and it was just I don't know who
or why, but someone said, oh, it must be this
trans pilot because they wrote this essay and now they're
very depressed and they committed a murder suicide because they're
being kicked out of the military, and that caught up
like wildfire and x in the Twitter sphere, and then.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
It was prostered everywhere. I remember couple of people that
I follow sharing this and I am Coulter, and Coulter
I mean crazy, but I am more cautious in the
aftermath of what I share in the aftermath of incidents,
because I don't want to share false information. I want
to share false pretenses. But people like, we're looking for
(39:49):
a scapegoat to make it about DEI, And look, I'm
a critic of DEI. I really don't believe in DEI.
I believe in equality and non discrimination. But I really
don't believe in the principles of DEI, that said, the
idea that anytime a plane crashes or an incident happens,
we're just gonna start shouting about DEI and looking for
random minorities to blame. I mean, that's what some people
(40:10):
on X did, and without evidence, they put you up
as a person who just killed a whole plane full
of people, that's including myself.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
Yeah, I mean it's so insane. So yes, So one
of the prominent accounts we believe is the first one
to tie the rumor to a picture of me as
the person and use my name and likeness. And so
that person's name is Matt Wallace. And so I am
suing Matt Wallace in federal court through the Colorado because
(40:41):
we believe that's where Matt Wallace resides. And so I'm
suing him in federal court for defamation because it's not
like I was a big I was a public profile
before I was a nobody, and now all of a sudden,
I was having to defend that I'm still alive and
appear now like I'm known everywhere, and so it really
(41:04):
changed my life. And while I've been able to manage
to make lemonade out of the lemons. I would have
rather none of this had happened. I like to keep
a low profile, and I would have just much rather
just kept to myself. It put my family at risk.
We had to hire private armed security that weekend because
I was being dosed and Virginia records, property records, you know,
(41:26):
aren't masked and things like that. And I carry, I
can steal carry well. I mean, I'm pro Second Amendment,
but I can still started conceal carrying every day now
because of it, because I get recognized and I never
know if someone's going to not like what I represent
and you know, find me down a dark alley. So
I just can't remain private anymore, unfortunately, And we should
(41:51):
have been mourning that tragedy, but instead someone wanted to
make clicks off of tragedy and you know, monetize the tragedy,
and that was just really sad. So if I do
win anything in this lawsuit, I'm going to donate it
all to the victims families of the crash. And because
I'm not trying to do what I'm accusing him of
(42:12):
enriching myself, I don't want to rich myself, but I
do want to hold him accountable. And so that is
the big thing is loose keys on keyboards are destroying
people's lives, and defamation is the only through the law,
is the only recourse we have right now because the
internet laws are just so wacky. And so that's what
I'm going to do. And so I found a good
(42:33):
network of pro bono lawyers that took up my case,
and we're going for it good.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
You know, he'll have his chance to defend himself and
he's entitled to that. And I can't jump to any
conclusions because I don't know that the intimate details of
the case. But people should not be able to just
blatantly lie on you and accuse you of heinous crimes
to millions of people on the Internet and then they
get their ex revenue check that week because it went
(42:59):
mega viral and they just move along with life. Meanwhile,
I mean, how crazy is it that there are I
don't know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people
out there who right now still erroneously think that you
are the pilot who caused that crash on it and
not only that that you did they think you did
it on purpose, which is absolutely we don't even think
(43:21):
that's what happened with the actual pilot. Who may they
all rest in peace, everyone involved in that tragedy. And like,
that's insane, that's evil to like lie on someone's name
like that. I mean, I've had much less in severe
and widespread lies about me, but I'm a public figure,
so not to say, you know, his skirt was too short,
(43:43):
but I kind of asked for it a little bit
with my line of work, and too, it's nowhere near
as severe. I've looked into legal recourse, but with me,
I'm a public figure, so it's much very few avenues
are open to you. With you, I hope you get
justice for that, because I don't care whether you're trans,
whether you're not. I don't care whether you think trans
people are just like confused. It's wrong to treat any
(44:05):
American like that, to just spread insane misinformation about them.
So I hope you get accountability for that. And I
also think it's really it's good. I mean, in my view,
it wouldn't be the most evil thing in the world
for you to keep the money, but the fact that
you're donating it to me. It makes it even more
commendable that you're doing that.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
Well, thank you. Yeah, No, that's that's I mean, it's
my religious principles, right like fight for those that can't fight,
So that's what I'm trying to do.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
Well. Look, I have to say I've spoken out about
this issue a lot over the years. I tend to
be at odds with my audience about it because my
audience tends to be pretty skeptical of like transactivism. But
this is an issue where I do think the transactivists
have gone too far. But I also think the Republicans
have gone too far and these policies are wrong. And
I think that while there's a conversation to be had
(44:55):
about some people with gender dysphoriam maybe not being fit
to serve, I think people you should be allowed to serve.
And I thank you for your service and for coming
on the podcast to share your story with everybody.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
Thank you so much, Betan. I really appreciate you having me.
Speaker 2 (45:10):
All right, guys, you can check out Joe's podcast and
channels linked in the description. Thanks so much for tuning in.
Do make sure subscribe to if you aren't yet, do
what that like button before you go, and with that
we'll talk again real soon.
I transitioned while it was allowed, and now being told
because I did that, there's absolutely no exception that I
can stay. You told me I could. I followed policy.
Now you're telling me because I did that, I'm disqualified,
which is kind of like a really jacked up conundrum
to be put in.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
All Right, guys, I'm super excited to talk today with
Joe Ellis about her experience as a transgender member of
the military and Trump's military band. We're going to get
into the specifics and debate some of the justifications that
have been put forward for it. But Joe Ellis is
a chief warrant officer and Blackhawk pilot in the Virginia
Army National Guard and the co host of the Transnormal
(00:43):
podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Joe,
thanks for coming on the show.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate
this opportunity.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Of course, Look, I've seen you speak out in the
news and on some high profile media appearances that you've
done over the last several months as kind of the
saga with trans military ban and discussion over all of
that has played out, and your story is really interesting,
but just for viewers so they can understand who you
(01:12):
are as a person before we even get into any
of the politics. Just tell us about your service in
your career in the military.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Sure, I joined the Virginia Army National Guard in two
thousand and nine as a helicopter mechanic and then from
there as an enlisted person. I went to Iraq in
twenty eleven and deployed and served as a door gunner,
so I would operate the machine gun out the side
of a black Hawk and then had a couple other missions,
(01:39):
one in Guatemala and then another one in Kuwait. And
then in twenty twenty I applied to become a warrant
officer and go to flight school for the Army, And
so I went down to Fort Rucker, Alabama and completed
eighteen months of training there and became a black Hawk
pilot and a warren officer.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Well, first off, thank you for your service. And I
really mean, I'm not setting aside all the debate over
in the military and everything. I really do appreciate that
and anyone who serves in our armed forces. Where in
this process did you transition? Were you already trans before
you entered the military? Was this partially through your service.
(02:17):
Tell us about that.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
So this was most recently actually, So I transitioned in
late twenty twenty three is when I started the process,
and I finished in early twenty twenty four. So I'm
fairly new as a transperson and coming out into the
world and everything. Before that, I lived as a man
my entire life leading up to that. So I was about,
(02:40):
I guess three thirty four when I started taking steps
and I'm thirty five.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Now, okay, and what is the transition entailed for you? Precisely?
Speaker 1 (02:50):
So for me it was hormones and then I did
a face surgery.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Okay. And you still take the hormones now, yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Yeah, I still take them, so just estrogen. I just
take the tablets.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
I don't mean to be invasive. I only ask because
I know you're fine. I'm the conversation.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Yeah, I'm an open book.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, So tell us about what's happening to you now,
because I know that you have been impacted by the
Trumpet administration's decision to dismiss people from the military who
identify as transgender.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Sure, so since i'm National Guard, I have a different
timeline than active duty. Active duty was given until June
sixth to decide conveniently on D Day to decide if
they were going to voluntarily separate or wait until the
involuntary process. And those two processes are just you can
(03:44):
self identify as being trans, which makes it a lot
easier on the military to figure out who you are,
and then you get some extra separation pay and some
other things like that. So it's very incentivized for trans
people to do that process. The other option is involuntary,
which is where you wait to be discovered. So they
(04:04):
have to do that. They either come through your medical
records or they have given authority to certain commanders to
look at social media postings and kind of hunt us
down and identify us as trans so that way they
can get rid of us, because, believe it or not,
the Department of the Defense doesn't track who is trans
and who is not. They don't even have a number
(04:24):
of how many of us are serving. When they were
at the court case, they couldn't tell the judge how
many of us are serving or provide any evidence to that.
And so I'm kind of in that process right now.
I am not going to volunteer to separate. It's pretty
obvious that I'm trans because I've unfortunately been thrust into
(04:45):
the spotlight, and some of the flight requirements I have
to do is I have to disclose what medications I'm
on and certain things, so everyone knows in my unit.
But I'm not going to elect to leave sooner. I'm
going to wait until they force me out because I
believe firmly that my service records over the last sixteen
years speak to my honorable service and the fact that
(05:08):
I am deployable and can do the job today. I
want to see that in writing that regardless of all
of this evidence, this person still isn't qualified to serve
and we want to kick this person out. I want
to see that process happen.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Yeah, I mean that's a choice. I understand you have
two options. Some people might choose to take the better
benefits and just go along with it. Some people might
choose I'm an obstinate person, So if I disagreed with
something that was happening, like if I was getting in
trouble at a job, I would not like resign and
walk away. I'd be like, no, you have to fire me,
and I'm going to stay. So I setting even aside
(05:43):
the debate, I can relate to that aspect of what
you said has being trans and obviously, I mean, you
only have your perspective, which is inherently kind of biased
towards your view of things. But has it really disrupted
your ability to meaningfully serve or achieve the amias and
duties to which you were employed.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
It hasn't. In fact, it's made it easier to do
certain things because now i can focus more on the
job at hand, and I'm not dealing with untreated you know,
mental issues or any kind of medical condition. Now it
can actually just move forward because I was diagnosed with
gender dysphoria, and the steps I took for my transition
(06:25):
alleviated those symptoms, and now I'm asymptomatic, So you could
say my dysphoria has been resolved, and so therefore I'm
a more effective person because I'm no longer dealing with
an issue. Similarly to someone who had depression and maybe
they're asymptomatic now they don't. That would be you know,
a more capable soldier going to war or flying an
(06:45):
aircraft like I do. And so that's been my experience
is is I've kind of come alive and in my
unit and folks have noticed that I'm just a better
person overall.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
So it's interesting to me that you mentioned gender dysphoria
because I've definitely we was going to bring this up.
So to be clear, I've actually been on the record
for years in opposition to the idea of categorically removing
trans people from the military. I've always thought that there
should just be some sort of case by case analysis
of people. And by the way, I think, regardless of
(07:16):
how you feel about this debate, it is crazy that
the military doesn't track this and doesn't have good numbers
on this, because it seems like relevant information just regardless.
But so I've actually never supported the trans military ban,
even though I often take positions that are like against
transactivism or whatever on many issues, I've agreed with them
(07:39):
over the years to some extent on that issue that
it is not necessary to just categorically remove trans people
from the military. I think anyone who I've always said,
like individual basis, anyone who can be declared fit to
serve and commit all the purposes, whether the trans or not.
Maybe that would rule out a lot of trans people
who have serious mental health issues. I don't know, but
(08:00):
if you have people who are fit to do the job.
I've always been against just kicking them out because they
identify as trans. That said, a lot of people don't
view it as bad, they view it as reasonable. There
are a number of reasons that get cited. So just
for the purposes of this conversation a little bit, I'm
in a Devil's Advocate with you, and I guess what
I'll ask just a series of clarifying questions. Do you
(08:22):
believe that gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
I believe it's a mental health condition that should be treated,
and I know the illness. The word illness brings a
little bit of a stigma, just like disability does. So
maybe that's semantics, but yes, it is. It is definitely
a thing.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I say it without stigma. I know what you're saying.
How yeah, I'm not saying that with stigma. Mental health
condition could be another way of saying sure.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
So yeah, we agree. I agree that it is in fact,
to transition to the military, you have to have it,
you have to be diagnosed, and you actually have to
go through a whole gate system that is similar to
the the pre everyone can be trans thing in the
public when you actually had to go through mental health
therapy and like all these steps, and you have to
prove real lived experience. So the military still keeps those rules,
(09:13):
and they actually have those for people transitioning, and so
I actually agree more with the military process of transitioning
than I do the public process.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Yeah, no, that makes sense. That gets to kind of
a separate issue. But I agree with you that this
stuff needs to be gate kept a lot more than
it has been. We've talked about that on the podcast
in many other contexts. But what I'll guess I guess
I'll say then, though, is my understanding, and you can
correct me if I'm wrong, is that if you have
any series of medical conditions, and again I'm not saying
(09:45):
this with stigma. If you have diabetes, if you have anxiety,
if you have depression, you can't serve in the military.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
So there's two standards for that. There is those who
are signing up for the military with those conditions actively,
and then there are those who had a history of
it that are signing up. And then there are those
that are currently serving that might develop those conditions while serving,
And each one is treated differently. So if you're trying
(10:13):
to sign up and you are on SSRIs or any
kind of heavy like psychmeds, the chances of you being
allowed in are very slim. Now, if you're signing up
and it's been five years since you've been on SSRIs,
there's a good chance you'll be able to serve. Now,
if I am serving and I go to war and
come back and get diagnosed with PTSD or depression, I'm
(10:36):
not just kicked out because I need to be put
on an SSRI. I am retained because there's value in
keeping me in my experience, but also the cost to
hire someone in and train them and all of that,
and so there's a whole different mechanism for those that
are currently serving.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
So let's take these one at a time, then, because
I'm really glad you clarified that, because I honestly don't
know the ins and outs of it. But so, if
for example, I have an anxiety disorder, I take a
medication for it actively, I know that I could not
enlist in the military, or it would be almost impossible
(11:13):
for me to do that while serving. In the same way,
why is it different to exclude people from signing up
specifically for the military who have a gender dysporia diagnosis
and need medication to treat it. Isn't it the same
thing as all sorts of medical conditions that we routinely
disqualify people for.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
It could be so the idea of someone signing up
is I think is different. Right. So, if you sign
up and you have untreated gender dysphoria, I think that's
a serious issue right now. If you've been treated and
you're asymptomatic, and you can show a standard of hey,
I'm no longer expanc these symptoms, I'm well adjusted, things
(11:54):
like that, right then I think there could be a
pathway based on what type of skills they might bring
to the table, or what type of medicine they're on.
If they're on tablets versus injectables some people, maybe they're
not on any hormones. You never know, right, So I
think there's, like you said, initially, a case by case
approach would be the thing that makes the most sense,
(12:15):
because it's not as simple. It's not black and white
like most things, unfortunately. And so if I write, man, yeah,
go ahead.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
If I had had serious depression and I'd take an SSRIs,
but it had been five years and I was no
longer on any medication, would I be able to enlist
in the military.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
I would have to double check that for sure, but
I know there is a time limit. Just like when
you're trying to apply for a flight physical to fly
for the FAA. There's all these criteria that are just
like if you if you haven't been on it for
five years and you have an evaluation that shows you
are good to go and clear. Also the severity, so
(12:54):
usually if you've ever attempted suicide or anything like that,
like the chances are slummed to none. Right, It's all
like shades of gray on if you can meet a
criteria to get an exception to join. Either way, you'll
still need an exception with a history of that kind
of depression or disorder, but the exception may be granted
(13:16):
and they have that just like they have it for
people currently serving that might have diabetes. They get an
exception to keep serving if they can meet certain criteria.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Yeah, I mean, I think that would make a lot
more sense in a way to treat gender dysphoria in
their armed services. But I guess so the question is like,
if you're a person with gender dysphoria who actively relies
on like estrogen or a hormone hormone therapy to treat
your condition of gender dysphoria, and you're not going to
(13:47):
stop taking it, right because you need it to treat
that condition, and you seek to enlist in the military.
Would that be legitimate grounds in the same way that like,
my anxiety disorder is currently legitimate grounds to deny somewhat
admission to the armed services, In the same way that
my anxiety disorder is currently very well treated by my medication,
but I have to stay on it or it would
(14:09):
get bad again. So what do you think about that
specific scenario.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
I'm not entirely sure, right, because I think I can
see both arguments, right. I think I would go down
to can you deploy to an austere environment with that medication? Like?
So are they tablets so you could stick twelve months
in your pocket, right and it's not going to go
(14:34):
bad because it doesn't have to be refrigerated all of
those things. Then probably yeah, you could let that person in.
Or are they someone like me who I haven't had
bottom surgery? So if I lost access to estrogen for
periods of time during a deployment or whatever, I would
be like physically okay, Like I wouldn't be absent of
(14:54):
hormones that I need because my body would start producing
testosterone again. And so while I would go through maybe
a couple moodswings and stuff like, it's so minor that
I think, Like I said, there's exceptions, I think that
could be made, but I think I would agree that
coming in with a condition is a lot different than
while you're serving you develop a condition.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
What the Trump administration is doing is taking people who
are actively serving now who are trans and presumably have
gender dysphoria then, and regardless of their particular circumstance, regardless
whether they're doing a great job, everyone in their team
loves them, there's no issue at all kicking them out
of the military. Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
That's correct, And that's why I have such an issue
with it, not only because I served. I mean, I
serve part time. I'm a patriot, and it has nothing
to do with finances, like I've just always wanted to serve.
But I have such an issue with it because Trump
banned one point zero under his first term. By the
time they went through the courts and kind of got settled,
(15:59):
ended up having sceptions for those that were currently serving
that it already transitioned while it was allowed, And so
in my case, I transitioned while it was allowed, and
now being told because I did that, there's absolutely no
exception that I can stay. And so it's kind of
like bait and switch, right Like, you told me I
could I followed policy. Now you're telling me because I
did that, I'm disqualified, which is kind of like a
(16:20):
really checked up conundrum to be put in. So that's
kind of how I feel about it, is like there
should be exceptions for us that have already transitioned, that
are meeting the standard that can deploy. You know, a
lot of us have been doing it for years and
haven't had issues.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
I No, I agree with that, and that puts me
at odds with some of my audience or followers who
kind of just think, no, you know, being again, to
speak crudely, they'll say, being trans is a mental disorder,
and people with mental disorders can't be in the military,
and that's an oversimplification. But I again, I think there's
a categorical exclusionary element to this that feels performative, that
(17:01):
feels culture warrior. I mean the announcement that the Trump
administration did of this ban suggested, and this was totally unnecessary.
They could have just announced the policy without this. They
included a statement suggesting that trans people are like liars
and they can't be trusted to serve in the military
because they lie about what gender they are. Now, that
(17:24):
just seems like very insulting to say, like trans people
are just like fundamentally dishonest and can't serve. I think
if a trans person thinks they have literally changed their
biological sex, then they are confused. But I think a
lot of people who identify as trans don't even necessarily
think that. They just think they have gender dysphoria and
(17:44):
living as the opposite gender will make them happy and
resolve that. So I found I took issue with that.
Just the actual policy aside. The way it was announced
felt gratuitous and cruel to me for sure.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
And you know, it's not a medical decision when not
being discharged as such, we're being discharged a national security concern.
So we're being discharged under the code of Juliet delta quilo.
That's the same code they discharge gay people under, and
it's the same code they would discharge someone mishandling classified information,
and so the current policy unless they change it right now,
(18:20):
it says when you go to separate these people, you
will use JDK as the code, and which will impact
my ability to get a clearance later if I decide
to apply for a job that needs a national security clearance,
they're going to look at my military records be like, well,
you're discharged under a national security code, like why would
we trust you to work here? Right? And so on
(18:42):
top of that, if they're saying it's it's medically disqualifying,
they're not offering us the medical separation process that other
people who develop a condition that they would be discharged
under would get. So if I broke my leg and
could not recover, I would be medically separated under a
medical board, and I would get certain benefits and certain
due process under that process, and it would be treated
(19:06):
honorably and discharged as a medical just like my brother.
Actually he got discharged for medical reasons. But that's not
what's applying to me. So you're saying it's a medical condition,
but then you're discharging me under a code and under
a process that exists for people who fail their PT test,
for people who like I said, mishanna classified information things
(19:28):
like that, Like they're not even using the process that
exists for medical because it would give us a little
bit more benefits if they did it that way. So
they're think.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
It's being cheap skates about it.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
I don't know if it's being cheap skates, but it's
inherently animous when you're saying all trans people under this
horrible language. And oh, by the way, it's also a
medical condition that's disqualifying, but we're not going to give
you the medical process. We're going to give you an
admin process that we would normally give for people who
can't meet a PT test or heighten weight or can't
(20:00):
graduate a school on time. And then we're also going
to discharge you with a code that says it's a
national security concern.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
So will this be considered a dishonorable discharge?
Speaker 1 (20:11):
It'll still be honorable, which is even weirder, right because
it still isn't quite It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Yeah, it sounds like it wouldn't be. I mean, obviously
I'm not familiar with this stuff, but.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
No, so I'm going to assume them if they discharge
me with that code because it hurts my ability to
get a future job if I need a clearance.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Again, that's fair. I mean, because there's lots of jobs
that you might work in where you would want a
security clearance. And whether somebody thinks you should be discharged
from the military because of gender disweard being a mental
condition or not. I mean, you didn't leak classified information, right,
you're not.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
I did not add anyone to a signal chat.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Yeah, you didn't add anyone to a signal chat either. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
I mean, I've got seventeen years in the IT field
because I'm part time military, I also work in IT
and I'm also in Virginia. So there's a lot of
jobs that would need a security clearance that I could get,
and with this code, I'm going to have to justify
it to every future employer why I got that code.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yeah, that's a real harm, and I think you should
sue them over that, So, honestly, good for you. What
I'm drawing from this conversation, honestly is that I, unlike
you know, maybe the left wing transactivist, I do not
really think that anyone who supports this, the idea of
a trans military band, must just be evil and hateful
(21:30):
and bigoted. Like, I think there's a legitimate conversation to
be had when what you're talking about is something that
is closely intertwined with a serious mental condition. But to me,
the way that Trump administration has done this, the acerbic
and like rude nature of the rhetoric attached to it,
what you're telling me about the administrative way it's being done,
(21:53):
I think people, even if they support the idea, should
pause and reflect on that and ask themselves whether any
of that is really necessary or whether that's a valid
way to treat people who have stepped up and sought
to serve our country just because they also happen to
be transgender. That's one thing I don't really understand about.
You know, it's funny. I don't know. You're probably not
(22:13):
very familiar with it, with my content or my work,
but I've been simultaneously attacked as transphobic for my whole
career from the left and then as like a woke
pro trans lib from like the far right, basically my
entire career. Because I don't actually hate trans people. I
have no problem with adults living their best lives. But
obviously I have you know, what they would call like
(22:34):
heterodox or far right fringe positions on a lot of
trans issues in the LGBT community. So I'm kind of
the enemy of everyone on this. Yeah, I've seen you
poke the bear a little bit. I do a couple
questions that also come to mind that I think we
should address for people. What about the idea that having,
for example, like a trans woman like yourself serve in
(22:58):
the military infringes on the privacy of female's serving. So like,
do you use private spaces for female service members.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
In the military. Yes, because under the policies that existed,
when you change your gender marker in the military, you
must use everything that aligns to that gender marker. So
once the gender marker has changed, which is typically at
the end of your transition process, once that gets flipped,
that's when you're no longer allowed to use the male stuff.
(23:29):
You have to use the female stuff. And so because
it's a very binary system in the military, and so yeah,
that's what I do.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Now.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
There are times when military is co ed, and like
there's certain deployments you're on, or there's certain training environments
where you are co located with you know, mixed genders,
like it's going to be male and female living in
the same room, using the same bathrooms, using the same showers.
So there are times when that exists. So it's not
like it's it's abnormal for that to happen, but yes,
(24:00):
that's pretty much how it works. Once it's changed in
the system, then that's when you're supposed to adhere to
those grooming standards, those uniforms, those bathrooms, everything.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
And does that involve situations that like, I mean, because
some of the problem with the shared space stuff is
that legit transsexual people won't be a problem, right, Like
they're not going to go walk around a women's spa
with their male genitalia out right like they're going to be,
if anything, not want to display that and will be
very private. Maybe they'll change in a stall like actual
(24:32):
people like that won't be the problem, And maybe it's
not as much of an issue in the military because
what you're saying is like there's a whole real process
you have to go through, Whereas in California you look
at the WII spa, right like, they just throw the
door open. Anybody who says they're a woman can go
in the women's room. Then you have males just walking
around with their ding dongs out. That's a real problem.
But I guess what I'm wondering is, like, is there
(24:52):
a legitimate concern for women's service members that allowing trans
women in particular to serve as as women for all
intents and purposes means they'll have to shower with males
and or change in front of males or other things
that might cause people legitimate discomfort.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
There might be discomfort for sure. So I don't want
to silence or negate women biological whatever term you want
to use, non trans women. It's some of mest of
our language these days. Anyway, we don't want to I
don't want to discount that real concern. I will say, though,
(25:33):
if you look at the data in the military, most
of the big sexual assault and issues that have happened
have not been because men were trans women were you know,
sleeping near other women. Like It's always been predatory men
that stormed into women's spaces, right, So if you look
(25:54):
at that, I think it was the Navy back in
the nineties they had a huge scandal, you name it, right,
It's a lot of men on men and men on
women like predatory happening in the military. When it comes
to sexual assault, and I haven't heard of any cases
where a trans person has been you know, the predatory person.
(26:17):
You know, We've been serving for tennish years now openly
in the military, and that just hasn't happened because it's
our numbers are so small. So yes, there's probably a
bad apple that will snink through somehow. They'll go through
the entire process of transitioning in the military, which is
like any other DMV government process. It's a pain in
the butt, lots of red tape, and then eventually you
(26:39):
get your gender market change a year plus later, and
it's like, now, I can't wait to violate someone's space.
It just it just doesn't seem logical. But I do
agree that I can understand that a woman would feel
uncomfortable with the idea of a man being there. But
I think when we shift our focus to a trans
(27:00):
sexual is not quite the same as a man.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah. Well, and it's interesting because I mean there's even
a theoretical scenario where they and this would have its
own problems. I'm not even endorsing this where they said, okay, well,
for the purpose of intimate spaces, trans women will have
to change with the men or change with the women
or something that's far short of kicking them out under
(27:23):
a code used to like kick out people who leak
classified files. I mean that to me, it seems like
the nuance of this subject is not represented in the
current Republican policies. Now, I'm also not sure and I
want to get your thoughts on this that it's represented
in kind of like the left wing trans take, which
(27:43):
is that the military should have non binary Visibility Day
and that every gender under the sun is legitimate and
just aoka. I mean, I think some of the backlash
that has resulted in things like the trans military ban
wouldn't have happened if they hadn't pushed so far on
some of this stuff.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Yeah, sports and kids, those are the two issues I think.
I think the military had been fine if it wasn't
for the sports and kids issues, and those issues were
very effective in the Trump campaign. And look, I come
from a conservative religious household. I was homeschooled and my
dad worked for Pat Robertson at the seven hundred Club,
(28:24):
you know, Christian broadcasting network. My parents voted for Trump
twice and even my dad was like, well, I didn't
think you would actually go and kick out service members
that are capable of serving like you. He always thought
that it would be a level headed approach of we'll
get rid of the bad ones and keep the good ones.
And it just doesn't make a lot of sense. And so, yeah,
(28:46):
when it comes to women and women's sports, there's a
huge fairness concern, Like trans women generally have an advantage overall.
Now there's gray areas of when or what kind of
puberty they experience and all of that. And then the
same thing with kids, like there has to be serious
guardrails for children, maybe age requirements. I don't think all
(29:10):
out bands make sense either, But then again, do whatever
you want is not a great policy either.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Yeah, well, we don't need to get into that. I
tend to at this point support bands because we don't
have to get in the whole issue. But I get
what you're saying, how do what you want is not okay,
and that's been, unfortunately the status quo. I think the
argument against bands would be a lot the argument for
bands would be a lot weaker if it was still
(29:37):
this extremely guardrailed process that only a tiny percentage of
people are doing. I think people and people like myself
who are averse to government bands in general end up
much more amenable to the idea of a ban when
the prospect of doing it in any sort of reasonable
or limited way, or trusting any of the authorities medical, scientific,
(30:00):
public health who are responsible in these areas is become
totally discredited in my view. But that's not even fair.
Let's not even get into that whole aside. I mean,
one other issue that people think of when it comes
to trans in the military is additional costs. That the
idea that when you're in the military, you get your
(30:21):
healthcare covered by taxpayers, and that will mean I believe
there's some transition surgeries that people get paid for by
serving in the military. I know you paid for yours yourself,
But is that a legitimate concern that people have. I
know it's a relatively small, like, it's a tiny piece
of the pie in terms of the massive military budget,
but is it fair for people to not want that
stuff paid for on tax paradigm?
Speaker 1 (30:43):
It's fair for people to not want that. But I
think sometimes when we say taxpayer, we forget that the
person receiving it is also a taxpayer, and my tax
dollars shouldn't go to your thing. I think there's a
language issue. There are tax dollars. We're all paying taxes,
like trans people are being paid by the taxpayer to
serve like regardless of what medical care they receive. And so,
(31:06):
you know, my biggest complaint with that argument is that
nobody cares that our tax dollars goes to thirty seven
million dollars more towards viagra for the military. Tell me
how viagra is a necessity for combat troops. Now, it's fine.
I don't have a problem with it. Like if you
need for PTSD or whatever people to be able to
(31:27):
get it up, great, Like, doesn't bother me with thirty
seven million dollars more on viagra than gender from me
in care. And so, if it's really a cost thing,
we got to look at the DoD budget as a whole,
which has never passed an audit, like the Pentagon's never
passed an audit. There's a lot of issues there to
go after something that costs, on average per trans soldier
less than one thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Yeah. I remember when I wrote about this years ago,
when I was critical of the band, I was like, listen,
the cost thing you're talking about such a tiny needle
pennies such a massive haystaff it really is. And also,
you know what if the if the cost was the concern,
you could simply say, Okay, we're not going to cover that.
(32:09):
And so like trans people have to pay for their
surgeries out of pocket, but we won't kick them out
of the military and.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Natically and yeah, and people joining the military under when
it was allowed the last four years had to sign
a statement saying that they had completed all of their
surgeries before they were allowed to join. That's a very
small detail that people don't know about that you had
to swear that yes, I have genertusphoria and it's been resolved,
and I am trans and I am joining the military,
(32:36):
and I and I promise you I don't intend to
get any additional surgeries.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
That's interesting. I did not know that. Yeah, I've covered
this issue pretty closely. Yeah, well, yeah, I mean I
think that's fair. I have no issue with like insurance
or stuff covering hormone therapy or other things. I think
there's an argument that some of the more the surgeries,
there's an argument that it's cosmetic essentially, I mean, right,
and the Army covers that does the Army cover, for example,
(33:05):
like a female service member who just wants a breast augmentation.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Easier than a trans service member.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Okay, well, I mean that's a.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
Better active duty When your active duty you get one
cosmetic surgery a year. It could be light bo it
could be skin reduction, it could be breast, it could be. Really,
the Army spins more on veneers than they do gender
framing care. Like, it's just so goofy to me that
some people think that we're driving up the budget like crazy,
and yeah, like if I develop gender dye for it,
(33:36):
or I come to the realization that's what I have
and I get diagnosed while I'm serving, I feel like
that should be the same as someone else who decides
they want breasts or someone else. I think that's covered, right, Yeah,
it is, it is right, and people just don't realize that.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
So I guess what I was thinking about was more
like with private health insurance, something like a boob job
is not covered, right, So the idea that, for example,
a female who wants larger breasts is not covered by
health insurance in many cases. However, a trans person who
is male to female who wants large breasts sometimes that
(34:15):
is covered by insurance. The discrepancy there, I can see
why people have an issue with, But like I said,
I agree with you, the cost thing is kind of
a distraction. Yeah. The other the.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
CIS argument is interesting too, what you just made because
private insurance will cover breast augmentations for CIS women who
have had misseectomies due to cancer. So if you say
gender dysphoria is a medical condition that needs to be
treated with a breast augmentation, couldn't you make the same argument.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
You could. I think part of the problem is that
the trends advocating for that. You absolutely could. No, I
hear your point, But part of the problem is that
the transactivist movement has argued that trans is in a
medical condition, and I agree with that, anyone who feels
different inside is trans. And so like when trans was
(35:03):
just a medical condition, it was way easier to defend
this stuff now that it's some like social fad that
includes I don't know if you saw this on my
ex because we follow each other, a video of this
this dad who says I'm a queer parent, and it's
just a dude who's married to a woman who has
kids and he's just a man and he feels non
(35:26):
binary on the inside, that considered trans now, so like
then it's watered down to the point where when trans
was just a statistically very rare medical condition that some
people experienced. I don't have a problem with that, and
I don't even have a problem with them getting the
things they need covered. I wonder whether things like surgeries
(35:49):
really have good enough data to truly justify them as
a medical expense. That's a whole subject that would have
to be researched. But if it's there, then okay, especially
if similarly situated stuff is covered. Again, though I do
think when it comes to the military question, it's kind
of a moot point, because okay, just don't pay for
surgeries then, and hormones are not expensive.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
Yeah, if the Trump administration came in and said, all right,
we're gonna let you serve, but here's how you get
an exception, you had to have already completed a transition
under the old policy, and any surgeries you want from
here on out you have to pay for. We'll cover
your hormones. Cool, or even further, you have to stay
(36:32):
with the mails and use mail bathrooms. I don't want that,
but that would those would be terms where I would
continue serving and I wouldn't I wouldn't get out over that.
You know, it's not the best conditions, but like it's
some sort of middle ground, and right now we're getting none.
We're getting no exceptions. The only exception you can get
is if you had gender dysphoria, but you never tried
(36:53):
to transition and you're stable enough in your biological sex
to keep serving. So the only people that can stay
are people who have untreated gender dysphoria.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
That's that's strange. The whole thing is very strange. Yeah,
A couple of topics, A couple like just kind of
other things I want to touch on is I've talked
about this on my show. There is an insane problem
with like right wing misinformation on x and on Twitter
and just kind of people spreading crazy stuff that is
not true. We saw this about the Minnesota shootings. We've
(37:25):
seen this about so many things. You were caught up
in that in a very unusual way. Tell us the
story of what the heck happened to you where you
had to release a proof of life video to the internett.
Speaker 1 (37:41):
Yeah, I wrote an essay right after the executive order
came out about the trans Military band to my former
boss Michael Smirkanish, who has a Serious XM program and
he's on CNN on Saturday mornings. He said he reached
out to me privately, said hey, I know you've you've
transitioned and you're serving. I would love to humanize this
issue because I don't think many people realize who the
(38:03):
people are that are going to get kicked out. And
I thought about it, and I was always very private
about everything because I was still serving and I didn't
want to get mixed up in anything or become politicized.
But I was like, you know what, this is my
chance to write a quick essay and appeal to people
as I'm a patriot, I've served, I want to keep serving.
And that's pretty much what the whole essay was about.
(38:24):
A little bit about my background and story, but that
was it. And what a coincidence that the data that
published and I appeared on SERIOUSXM with Michael stomer Conish
that evening was when the crash happened in DC between
the Airliner and the black Hawk, and so I had
a fresh essay as a transperson Blackhawk pilot from Virginia
(38:45):
on the interwebs, including what ended up getting released as
a podcast from Serious XM of my segment, and then
by a day and a half later, it was being
rumored that because of the DEI comments, the president had
made that the third Pilot must be a DEI higher
and to the Internet that became woman or trans or
(39:07):
something right, and it was just I don't know who
or why, but someone said, oh, it must be this
trans pilot because they wrote this essay and now they're
very depressed and they committed a murder suicide because they're
being kicked out of the military, and that caught up
like wildfire and x in the Twitter sphere, and then.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
It was prostered everywhere. I remember couple of people that
I follow sharing this and I am Coulter, and Coulter
I mean crazy, but I am more cautious in the
aftermath of what I share in the aftermath of incidents,
because I don't want to share false information. I want
to share false pretenses. But people like, we're looking for
(39:49):
a scapegoat to make it about DEI, And look, I'm
a critic of DEI. I really don't believe in DEI.
I believe in equality and non discrimination. But I really
don't believe in the principles of DEI, that said, the
idea that anytime a plane crashes or an incident happens,
we're just gonna start shouting about DEI and looking for
random minorities to blame. I mean, that's what some people
(40:10):
on X did, and without evidence, they put you up
as a person who just killed a whole plane full
of people, that's including myself.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
Yeah, I mean it's so insane. So yes, So one
of the prominent accounts we believe is the first one
to tie the rumor to a picture of me as
the person and use my name and likeness. And so
that person's name is Matt Wallace. And so I am
suing Matt Wallace in federal court through the Colorado because
(40:41):
we believe that's where Matt Wallace resides. And so I'm
suing him in federal court for defamation because it's not
like I was a big I was a public profile
before I was a nobody, and now all of a sudden,
I was having to defend that I'm still alive and
appear now like I'm known everywhere, and so it really
(41:04):
changed my life. And while I've been able to manage
to make lemonade out of the lemons. I would have
rather none of this had happened. I like to keep
a low profile, and I would have just much rather
just kept to myself. It put my family at risk.
We had to hire private armed security that weekend because
I was being dosed and Virginia records, property records, you know,
(41:26):
aren't masked and things like that. And I carry, I
can steal carry well. I mean, I'm pro Second Amendment,
but I can still started conceal carrying every day now
because of it, because I get recognized and I never
know if someone's going to not like what I represent
and you know, find me down a dark alley. So
I just can't remain private anymore, unfortunately, And we should
(41:51):
have been mourning that tragedy, but instead someone wanted to
make clicks off of tragedy and you know, monetize the tragedy,
and that was just really sad. So if I do
win anything in this lawsuit, I'm going to donate it
all to the victims families of the crash. And because
I'm not trying to do what I'm accusing him of
(42:12):
enriching myself, I don't want to rich myself, but I
do want to hold him accountable. And so that is
the big thing is loose keys on keyboards are destroying
people's lives, and defamation is the only through the law,
is the only recourse we have right now because the
internet laws are just so wacky. And so that's what
I'm going to do. And so I found a good
(42:33):
network of pro bono lawyers that took up my case,
and we're going for it good.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
You know, he'll have his chance to defend himself and
he's entitled to that. And I can't jump to any
conclusions because I don't know that the intimate details of
the case. But people should not be able to just
blatantly lie on you and accuse you of heinous crimes
to millions of people on the Internet and then they
get their ex revenue check that week because it went
(42:59):
mega viral and they just move along with life. Meanwhile,
I mean, how crazy is it that there are I
don't know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people
out there who right now still erroneously think that you
are the pilot who caused that crash on it and
not only that that you did they think you did
it on purpose, which is absolutely we don't even think
(43:21):
that's what happened with the actual pilot. Who may they
all rest in peace, everyone involved in that tragedy. And like,
that's insane, that's evil to like lie on someone's name
like that. I mean, I've had much less in severe
and widespread lies about me, but I'm a public figure,
so not to say, you know, his skirt was too short,
(43:43):
but I kind of asked for it a little bit
with my line of work, and too, it's nowhere near
as severe. I've looked into legal recourse, but with me,
I'm a public figure, so it's much very few avenues
are open to you. With you, I hope you get
justice for that, because I don't care whether you're trans,
whether you're not. I don't care whether you think trans
people are just like confused. It's wrong to treat any
(44:05):
American like that, to just spread insane misinformation about them.
So I hope you get accountability for that. And I
also think it's really it's good. I mean, in my view,
it wouldn't be the most evil thing in the world
for you to keep the money, but the fact that
you're donating it to me. It makes it even more
commendable that you're doing that.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
Well, thank you. Yeah, No, that's that's I mean, it's
my religious principles, right like fight for those that can't fight,
So that's what I'm trying to do.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
Well. Look, I have to say I've spoken out about
this issue a lot over the years. I tend to
be at odds with my audience about it because my
audience tends to be pretty skeptical of like transactivism. But
this is an issue where I do think the transactivists
have gone too far. But I also think the Republicans
have gone too far and these policies are wrong. And
I think that while there's a conversation to be had
(44:55):
about some people with gender dysphoriam maybe not being fit
to serve, I think people you should be allowed to serve.
And I thank you for your service and for coming
on the podcast to share your story with everybody.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
Thank you so much, Betan. I really appreciate you having me.
Speaker 2 (45:10):
All right, guys, you can check out Joe's podcast and
channels linked in the description. Thanks so much for tuning in.
Do make sure subscribe to if you aren't yet, do
what that like button before you go, and with that
we'll talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.