Judge questions whether Hegseth’s testosterone plan undermines transgender troops ban
A federal judge is questioning whether the Pentagon’s new testosterone initiative undermines its legal defense of restrictions on transgender troops, ordering the government to explain why hormone treatment is acceptable for some service members yet disqualifying when provided for gender dysphoria.U.S. Reyes took notice Wednesday of War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent announcement that troops 30 and older would be screened annually for testosterone deficiency and could voluntarily receive testosterone replacement therapy. Reyes, who is overseeing a challenge to the transgender military executive order in Talbott v.
- ▪A federal judge is questioning whether the Pentagon’s new testosterone initiative undermines its legal defense of restrictions on transgender troops, ordering the government to explain why hormone treatment is acceptable for some service me
- ▪Reyes took notice Wednesday of War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent announcement that troops 30 and older would be screened annually for testosterone deficiency and could voluntarily receive testosterone replacement therapy.
- ▪Reyes, who is overseeing a challenge to the transgender military executive order in Talbott v.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
A federal judge is questioning whether the Pentagon’s new testosterone initiative undermines its legal defense of restrictions on transgender troops, ordering the government to explain why hormone treatment is acceptable for some service members yet disqualifying when provided for gender dysphoria.U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes took notice Wednesday of War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent announcement that troops 30 and older would be screened annually for testosterone deficiency and could voluntarily receive testosterone replacement therapy. Reyes, who is overseeing a challenge to the transgender military executive order in Talbott v. Trump, said the department’s new “High-T” plan could affect the government’s justification for the restrictions.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Washington Examiner.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Washington Examiner
