The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) denies that the transgender servicemembers challenging President Donald Trumps ban on trans people serving openly in the military are the gender they say they are.On Friday, August 1, the DOJ filed its response to Talbott v. United States. The lawsuit, brought by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) on behalf of trans servicemembers argues that Trumps January 27 executive order banning trans people from serving in the military discriminates against Plaintiffs based on their sex and based on their transgender status, without lawful justification, in violation of the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Related Supreme Court allows military to start kicking trans people out The Court lifted an injunction against the trans military ban. Thousands of people could get kicked out of the military. Rather than being based on any legitimate governmental purpose, the ban reflects animosity toward transgender people because of their transgender status, the suit argues. The categorical exclusion of transgender people from military service lacks a rational basis, is arbitrary, and cannot be justified by sufficient federal interests.The lawsuit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the categorical exclusion of transgender people from military service. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today The DOJ has argued that Trumps ban is not based on transgender status per se, but on a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. A Pentagonmemoissued in February stated that the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.In its Friday filing, the DOJ describes each of the plaintiffs in Talbott v. United States who are trans women as a male who identifies as a female, while each of the plaintiffs who are trans men is described as a female who identifies as a male. It argued that the plaintiffs in the case are not entitled to the requested relief. The trans servicemembers, the filing said, have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted and they have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Its difficult for me to understand the defenses statement that I am a female, which contradicts all of my government documentation, such as my license, passport, social security card, and birth certificate, lead plaintiff Nicolas Talbott told The Advocate following the DOJ filing. The statements in this filing do not align with the promise to treat us (transgender service members) with dignity and respect throughout this process.Shannon Minter, National Center for LGBTQ Rights legal director and one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs in the case said that the filing is part of the administrations absurd attempt to purge highly skilled and dedicated service members simply because they are transgender while simultaneously pretending that transgender people dont exist.In March, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the trans military ban from taking effect. During court proceedings, Reyes called the orders assertion that trans pronoun use undermines troop effectiveness frankly ridiculous and evidence of Trumps unadulterated animus against trans individuals. But in May, the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case, Schilling v. Trump, that the ban can take effect while the various court challenges play out.At the end of the day, its all just words, Talbott said of the DOJs recent filing in his case. When this filing was released, I was at my unit performing my duties, which is where I will be tomorrow. This has no impact on my abilities as a soldier or on my resilience.Minter, meanwhile, lauded Talbott and the other trans servicemembers challenging the ban for having faced and overcome far greater challenges than what she described as the federal governments childish name-calling.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.