Is gender dysphoria a mental disorder? Should this be cause for disqualification?

Sir,
Good morning and thank you. This is a very emotional issue for many in my community. I want to be a good representative, an ambassador if you will. What you and I share is that we are leaders. For me that is not only in my professional life but also in my personal. I want to be an example that others can follow (follow me!)

As with so many situations I understand that you are unable to sympathize. When you look in the mirror you see yourself. For me it's been different. You can't imagine feeling like your body is wrong I imagine. I have lived with that feeling since I was 12. What I would hope for is the ability to empathize. Perhaps for people to say, "while I can't imagine what that feels like, I can imagine how hard it would be". Diversity is hard because we are going against our natural response to life, which is to gravitate towards sameness and that which we understand. I submit to you that in the military it is our ability to accept diversity and still work as a team which allows us to overcome adversity so well.

Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate response.

Major Snyder,
This is a great question and one that has been asked many many times. In fact it's often asked about Tricare issues all over the spectrum. Here is my response and it will sound very similar to my previous response so please forgive me:

The people who should determine what the standard of care is are doctors and doctors alone. As for who should pay for it. Well I submit to you this. The affordable care act now covers transgender related care for those who use it. Federal agencies and contractors insurance companies are now required to cover transgender related care for government enployees. And most insurance companies offer transgender related care. By the way all of these things happened over the last two months. So right now service members are the only people who the government provides insurance for that don't get transgender related care. I currently pay for my care out of pocket but civilian contractors and those covered under the affordable care act don't. In fact due to the standard of care requirement even those in the federal prison system require transgender related care. I can promise that the care will not be taken from any of those people at this point. So I ask you this. If doctors have established a standard of care and all of those people are being taken care of, do service members not also, if not more deserve to be taken care of?

1LT(P) (Servicemember) - 1LT Servicemember; I am 41, so I remember jokes about expensive wrenches and toilet seats, but don't recall specifics. My concern (right or wrong) is purely financial. I don't dispute an individual's right to define their gender, sexual preference, politics, religion, and maybe other characteristics...I am worried that if someone enters the military with a gender identification different from their biological gender, the military will spend money providing care. I think (I am not a medical officer) that most of the medical disqualification decisions we make are based on the impact to mission and/or the potential cost for care.

Bottom line to me, I don't want the military to become saddled with more costs, even if we have spent money foolishly in the past.

If the care isn't substantially expensive, or if the government is only responsible to provide part of it (e.g. hormones and not surgery), then I think we (military) will have no problem working with our teammates and focusing on the mission.

SSG Patricia King - Bam! You dropped a truth bomb on me. There is no way (with a clean conscience) that I can say its fair for prisoners to qualify for medical care that Soldiers (Airmen, Marines, et al.) don't deserve. Not sure about intake (enlistment or commissioning) standards, but for Soldiers already serving (like you), I support providing care through the military medical system.

All that being said, I obviously don't make policy, but I do have an opinion...thanks for helping to educate me.

SSG (Join to see) - I'm glad you asked that and I should apologize for not specifying why - Because a "no harm no foul" answer is simply reactionary. When we say "well, it hasn't been a problem before" (being for the cause) or conversely being against trans-sexuals serving - "this is how we've always done things" we open ourselves up to either making a decision in which we don't have enough information to base that decision on (no historical information does not mean no problem), or maintaining the status quo (consider the case if we kept minorities segregated to their own units) which isn't necessarily a good thing either. I'm trying to find thoughts as to exactly WHY this condition (everything I've ever read calls it a condition, not an opinion, lifestyle, or anything else for that matter), should or should not be a limiting factor in gaining entry through MEPS.

SFC Nikhil Kumra OK, that makes more sense. In fact, I have basically said what you just said twice this week on this site. When I read "no harm no foul" I interpreted it as "If it's not hurting anyone, what's the problem", which didn't make sense as a not acceptable reason to me.