This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An analysis of a ruling from Ana Reyes, a judge in Washington, that President Donald Trump's military must accept those with gender dysphoria, is taking her to task for singling out one political ideology – that could undermine America's national defense.

It is Charles "Cully" Stimson, of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, who wrote at the Daily Signal that there is a long list of physical and mental conditions that disqualify individuals from being in the military.

Gender dysphoria is just one.

The analysis notes Reyes has barred Trump from expelling "certain transgender servicemembers" from the military, in a legal case that already is on appeal.

"The U.S. military exists to defend the nation. As an all-volunteer force, the military relies on qualified men and women volunteering to serve in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Space Force. Enlisted men and women are typically high school graduates, young, meet or exceed certain physical and mental aptitude tests, and pass security background checks. Officers are college graduates and must pass the same or similar tests as enlisted personnel," he explained.

"Not everyone is cut out to serve in the military. Far from it. Some don't want to serve. Others want to serve but are not eligible because they are overweight, have asthma, musculoskeletal issues, vision or hearing impairments, dental issues, allergies, skin conditions, psychiatric disorders, eating disorders, learning disabilities, or one or more of hundreds of other disqualifying physical or mental conditions. Others are eligible to serve but don't pass the minimum physical or mental tests," he said.

Significantly, the military cannot afford to hire those who have disqualifying medical, emotional or psychological conditions.

"That lawful discrimination is rationally related to a legitimate, indeed compelling, government interest. Our military must only hire men and women who are ready, willing and able, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, to deploy anywhere in the world at a moment's notice and who have the physical, mental, emotional, and psychological stability and toughness to fight and win," he explained.

In fact, such deployability requirements have a list of "30 broad categories" that can disqualify personnel.

Among those listed under "Learning, Psychiatric, and Behavioral Disorders," disqualified are those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a history of learning disorders such as dyslexia, autism, schizophrenic disorders, delusional disorders, a history of being bipolar, depression, conduct "disorders," eating disorders, self-harm disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociative disorders and many more.

"The military lawfully discriminates against myriad people with mental health conditions. We do so not because we are callous, unfeeling, or don't wish the best for people (including family members and friends) with these conditions," he explained.

"The profession of arms is different from all other professions. The demands, operational tempo, physical and mental stressors, and lifestyle are distinct from all (except for a small handful of) civilian jobs. That requires the military to make sensible, reasoned choices about who can and who cannot be allowed to serve in the armed forces of the United States."

Trump's order specifically noted that longstanding policy is that military members are "free of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization."

He called for those with "gender dysphoria" to be moved out of the armed forces.

The analysis pointed that out Reyes "tips her hand" by using loaded language in her decision, calling people "marginalized persons.'

It explains Reyes falsely conflates "skin color, sex, and sexual orientation with people who suffer from a cognizable mental disorder, gender dysphoria," that that "infects" her opinion.

And her citation of the Constitution's reference to all being "equal" is a reach too far.

"When it comes to whether someone is physically, emotionally, or psychologically qualified to serve in the armed forces, everyone is not equal. True, everyone has equal value and dignity as a human being. But that's not the point. Equal value and dignity as a human being does not translate to equality of suitability to serve in the armed forces, a fact that Judge Reyes blatantly ignores."