Do you agree with Trump decision to ban transgender people from the military?

I don't agree with the ban, but I don't think the government needs to pay for gender reassignment surgery.

I'm not really about telling people they can't fight for this country, something that I wouldn't be capable of doing.

The surgery is covered by their health plan, so the military covers most other surgeries and medical procedures as well. The economic argument doesn't convince me.

Here's an interesting article that talks about how a fight over the military and whether they should cover the surgery would've threatened funding for Trump's border wall:

www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military

As far as combat, I see no difference in sexual orientation and would gladly fight next to any US serviceman.

I just think it would cause a lot of chaos and many changes. Who are the transgendered going to shower with? Do women in the Army really want some "guy" in the shower with them? Sitting in the stall next to them?

As one who's seen combat, and as a matter of troop morale in the unique stresses of war, I'd have to favor excluding transgenders from combat in the field. There is no place for this distraction on a battlefield against other armies comprised entirely of men, the potential liabilities should become obvious.

That said, exempting one group from serving on the front lines based on sexual orientation would be advocating unfair institutional bias, especially now that women are allowed in combat (in the US). This would open a refuge for cowardice. 

So too, is having the military being required to provide free (medically unnecessary) elective surgery for trans members, patently unfair.       .   ---that ugly business with the traitor Bradley Manning was appalling.

To me, this is similar to the transgender bathroom dispute going on in schools. So yes, based on these ethical conflicts,  I'd stand behind excluding transgenders from the military, though I doubt this will become policy. 

I don't endorse a pompous two-faced rookie President with five military deferments and no family in-service cowardly tweeting from his bathroom or wherever instead of owning it by legislation. 

I don't think it should matter. If you can hold a gun and shoot what you've aimed at, you should be good to go. But then, I've never been in combat, so I'm probably missing some skills that would be helpful to have.

Like Danae I don't really care unless they are going in just so us tax payers pay for their surgeries. That I don't think is fair.