联邦法官以薄弱的法律和科学理由质疑特朗普政府的变性人军事禁令。 Federal judges questioned the Trump administration’s transgender military ban, citing weak legal and scientific grounds.

联邦法官在一次关于特朗普政府变性者军事禁令的听证会上表示强烈怀疑,质疑政府的法律和科学理由,特别是在军事准备和单位凝聚力方面。 Federal judges voiced strong skepticism during a hearing on the Trump administration’s transgender military ban, questioning the government’s legal and scientific justification, particularly regarding military readiness and unit cohesion. 第九和DC.C.法官 Judges from the Ninth and D.C. 巡回法庭对政府律师前后不一致的解释提出质疑,指出该政策的限制比以前更为广泛,而且缺乏先例。 Circuits challenged inconsistent explanations from government lawyers, noting the policy’s broader restrictions than previous versions and lack of precedent. 法律倡导者争辩说,这项禁令是歧视性的,出于政治动机,尽管没有不当行为,却伤害服务成员。 Legal advocates argued the ban is discriminatory and politically motivated, harming service members despite no misconduct. 其结果可能会在联邦政策中开创科学和平等的先例,尽管还没有作出任何决定。 The outcome could set a precedent on science and equality in federal policy, though no decision has been made.