Because they haven’t served the amount of years needed to retire.

It’s interesting there was a report out a year or two ago that Ukraine was either promoting pride parades or like teaching tolerance for gay folks, because they needed more folks for the military and Ukrainians were homophobic.

Seems like when the military is already having trouble recruiting folks, maybe becoming less tolerant isn’t the solution. Decisions like this make Americans less safe.

Wow. This is just egregiously mean.

Why would anybody defend a country which might deny them their retirement for arbitrary political whims?

While I think kicking them out odds incredibly stupid and mean, 20 years is the retirement term, so this is somewhat misleading. It’s not like they would be getting retirement if they separated voluntarily.

For those that just read the headlines:

Transgender service members are being forcibly separated from the service under Trump’s orders.

Those with 15 to 18 years of service applied for early retirement benefits. (Retirement normally happens at 20 years.)

Those applications were denied, but they were allowed to apply for an exception.

All exceptions were rejected.

Countries that allow trans people to serve: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom

Canada lifted its ban in 1992 and provides medical support, including gender-affirming surgery

United Kingdom allows open service, though it typically requires individuals to complete their transition before enlistment

Israel supports transgender service, covering hormones and gender-affirming surgery

Bolivia began allowing transgender people to serve openly starting around 2015

Greece lifted its ban in 2025

South Africa has allowed transgender individuals to serve since 1998

When they reach some defined age, their accrued benefits become available? I live in another economy and we have the concept of "preservation age" at which you can begin your retirement, this is somewhat more precise and distinct from "retire early"

Surely their statutory benefits and personal payments cannot be withheld indefinitely? Frozen perhaps, and so declining in value absent contributions.

A shitty move no matter what. I'm trying to understand if this is a misappropriation, a withholding of pension rights in the future.