Posted on Jun 5, 2015
Change is happening for the better. SECAF makes positive changes to Transgender military service policy, what are your points of view?
7.57K
17
30
0
0
0
I'm proud to be part of this change as this article is about me and my family
"The Air Force announced policy changes Thursday that will make it more difficult to discharge transgender troops, a move that mirrors one made in March by the Army and puts the Pentagon a step closer to allowing transgender people to serve openly.
Troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria or who identify as transgender are generally discharged from serving, based on medical grounds. Those decisions have been made by doctors and unit commanders. The new Air Force policy requires those decisions to be reviewed by high-level officials at Air Force headquarters.
"Though the Air Force policy regarding involuntary separation of gender dysphoric Airmen has not changed, the elevation of decision authority to the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency, ensures the ability to consistently apply the existing policy," Daniel Sitterly, a top Air Force personnel official, said in a statement.
The Air Force and Army moves follow a number of statements from top Pentagon officials about dismantling the policy allowing transgender troops to be kicked out of the services. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said this year in response to a question about transgender service that ability to perform military tasks should be the standard for eligibility.
Air Force Secretary Deborah James expressed openness to allowing transgender troops to serve.
"From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve," James told USA TODAY. "And so I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't come under review."
The Pentagon, as part of a review of medical eligibility rules, is examining the transgender issue. A decision on that is not likely for months. The last review was conducted in 2011.
The Air Force move puts the Pentagon on a path similar to the one it followed on the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allowed gays and lesbians to serve unless their sexuality was discovered.
Until 2011, the decision to discharge gay troops had been raised to the Pentagon's top lawyer and personnel official and service secretaries. That requirement functioned as a moratorium, as no further dismissals were sought under "don't ask, don't tell."
A psychiatrist or psychologist must support the recommendation for discharge for gender dysphoria. A commander must also determine that the condition interferes with troops' performance of their duty.
Several close allies of the U.S. military, including Great Britain and Israel, allow transgender troops to serve openly."
Read the full story here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/04/air-force-transgender-troops/28501835/
"The Air Force announced policy changes Thursday that will make it more difficult to discharge transgender troops, a move that mirrors one made in March by the Army and puts the Pentagon a step closer to allowing transgender people to serve openly.
Troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria or who identify as transgender are generally discharged from serving, based on medical grounds. Those decisions have been made by doctors and unit commanders. The new Air Force policy requires those decisions to be reviewed by high-level officials at Air Force headquarters.
"Though the Air Force policy regarding involuntary separation of gender dysphoric Airmen has not changed, the elevation of decision authority to the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency, ensures the ability to consistently apply the existing policy," Daniel Sitterly, a top Air Force personnel official, said in a statement.
The Air Force and Army moves follow a number of statements from top Pentagon officials about dismantling the policy allowing transgender troops to be kicked out of the services. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said this year in response to a question about transgender service that ability to perform military tasks should be the standard for eligibility.
Air Force Secretary Deborah James expressed openness to allowing transgender troops to serve.
"From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve," James told USA TODAY. "And so I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't come under review."
The Pentagon, as part of a review of medical eligibility rules, is examining the transgender issue. A decision on that is not likely for months. The last review was conducted in 2011.
The Air Force move puts the Pentagon on a path similar to the one it followed on the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allowed gays and lesbians to serve unless their sexuality was discovered.
Until 2011, the decision to discharge gay troops had been raised to the Pentagon's top lawyer and personnel official and service secretaries. That requirement functioned as a moratorium, as no further dismissals were sought under "don't ask, don't tell."
A psychiatrist or psychologist must support the recommendation for discharge for gender dysphoria. A commander must also determine that the condition interferes with troops' performance of their duty.
Several close allies of the U.S. military, including Great Britain and Israel, allow transgender troops to serve openly."
Read the full story here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/04/air-force-transgender-troops/28501835/
Transgender
US Air Force
Leadership
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
4
4
0
I am sorry but I disagree with you. The US Military Forces are not a 'social experiment'. We require a disciplined force to be combat ready. Some members of Congress and liberal politicians like to use our military for social experiments just to garner votes in election years. Almost all of these experiments fail.
Being 'transgender' is a mental disorder that leaves someone with identity confusion, and if you are confused about who you are, you are easily confused about other things, too. This is a big problem in the heat of battle that could lead to failure of your 'muscle memory' putting yourself and your team's lives in danger.
Like the experiment of gays in the military or gay marriage in the military, transgender troops bring a big question of trust and reliability to your fellow troops.
Then there is the big question of capture by enemy forces. How do you think an enemy will treat you compared to your fellow POWs?
Finally, where do military social experiments end? Will pedophiles and drug addicts be allowed to serve? What about known rapists? How about people who have sex with animals? Former US Army PFC Bradley Manning is a transgender. He showed the world just how much he (she?) could be trusted and is currently serving time at the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks, although President Obama commuted his sentence yesterday and he will be released in May 2017
The US has a population of about 325 million people, less than 1% serve in the military and less than 8% have ever served. About 2% of our population identify as gay or transgender. Of our population, about 30% are within the age groups the military seeks to fill its ranks. Not everyone qualifies. We need to recruit the very best from this demographic, that means no gays, no transgender, no untrustworthy people (straight or not). we have to maintain a disciplined, trusted, and combat ready force. The faith of our nation depends on it.
Being 'transgender' is a mental disorder that leaves someone with identity confusion, and if you are confused about who you are, you are easily confused about other things, too. This is a big problem in the heat of battle that could lead to failure of your 'muscle memory' putting yourself and your team's lives in danger.
Like the experiment of gays in the military or gay marriage in the military, transgender troops bring a big question of trust and reliability to your fellow troops.
Then there is the big question of capture by enemy forces. How do you think an enemy will treat you compared to your fellow POWs?
Finally, where do military social experiments end? Will pedophiles and drug addicts be allowed to serve? What about known rapists? How about people who have sex with animals? Former US Army PFC Bradley Manning is a transgender. He showed the world just how much he (she?) could be trusted and is currently serving time at the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks, although President Obama commuted his sentence yesterday and he will be released in May 2017
The US has a population of about 325 million people, less than 1% serve in the military and less than 8% have ever served. About 2% of our population identify as gay or transgender. Of our population, about 30% are within the age groups the military seeks to fill its ranks. Not everyone qualifies. We need to recruit the very best from this demographic, that means no gays, no transgender, no untrustworthy people (straight or not). we have to maintain a disciplined, trusted, and combat ready force. The faith of our nation depends on it.
(4)
(0)
I am just an infantry officer. I don't see this in the political light. I have been to combat. I have seen enough in my time in to understand the demands of the Army. My opinion isn't reflective of the current push to accept this.
I don't understand how this is going to make us more combat effective. I look at the past and see a contribute of a minority group that greatly impacted the war effort. The Navajo Code talkers were one of the greatest assets in the war. I just don't see how this will lead to a better Army or military. I am of course not talking about the need for equality. I believe it is a balancing act that should be in check. In some places in the Army equality should decide how a unit is structured and in some other places the mission should decide.
Should the Army offer assistance for such. I wouldn't mind some test boosters on the Army's dollar. But I can't get them. All of a sudden this equality is out of the window. There are some things that a standing Army shouldn't entertain. When gay soldiers came out I was in favor of that move. They serve honorably. There wasn't anything more than just changing a policy. But this would drastically effect more than that. I don't know how this would work in the Army or the Marines where more jobs are separated by the gender lines.
Can a transgender that now identifies themselves as a female serve on a Cultural Engagement Team. Then when they come back can then re-identify as a male to try out for Special Forces? This is something that I don't think an Army should be dealing with. But if the transgender do this it will only be a matter of time.
I don't understand how this is going to make us more combat effective. I look at the past and see a contribute of a minority group that greatly impacted the war effort. The Navajo Code talkers were one of the greatest assets in the war. I just don't see how this will lead to a better Army or military. I am of course not talking about the need for equality. I believe it is a balancing act that should be in check. In some places in the Army equality should decide how a unit is structured and in some other places the mission should decide.
Should the Army offer assistance for such. I wouldn't mind some test boosters on the Army's dollar. But I can't get them. All of a sudden this equality is out of the window. There are some things that a standing Army shouldn't entertain. When gay soldiers came out I was in favor of that move. They serve honorably. There wasn't anything more than just changing a policy. But this would drastically effect more than that. I don't know how this would work in the Army or the Marines where more jobs are separated by the gender lines.
Can a transgender that now identifies themselves as a female serve on a Cultural Engagement Team. Then when they come back can then re-identify as a male to try out for Special Forces? This is something that I don't think an Army should be dealing with. But if the transgender do this it will only be a matter of time.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) So if I was to feel that I should be a body builder and wanted to take Test Boosters and steroids would you oppose that while I am serving?
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) in my opinion nope i dont however i also dont see where you are going with that comment.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) It would be elective for me. But if I were to do such a thing the Army shouldn't be responsible for my actions. Taking such shots wouldn't be something that would be something that should be dealt with. We are here to serve our nation. I understand that a lot of people want to serve but it really isn't an entitlement. Should the nation really go out of their to cater to to some? If so, how many other categories should the military cater too? Should it end with transgender? If a soldier is Mormon and wants both of his wives on tricare should he? I am just very weary of changing what is working right now. If an infantryman wants to alter their identity then he couldn't be infantry, or could she? I don't see how this is going to be something that makes the military more efficient at fighter wars.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
IMHO I believe some of the recent changes have left those who do not go with flow, are looked at as some sort of Neanderthal. But what of those who have religious beliefs or just don't accept that they want a transgendered person in the their barracks, shower, tent? Do we simply suck it up or get out? Ruin the career because we don't some version of T-SHARP? And what comes next, National Man Boy Love gets their day and can join the military? Lets legalize dope to while were at it, parents having sex with their kids? bestiality? When does the morality factor that I was taught in the service come into play? Ultimately I have to ask is this going to affect "good military order and discipline?" I find it hard to believe it won't have an affect. If it becomes legal, should tax payers to have to pay for the transformation? What changes would be needed for the UCMJ?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Sexual assault has always been an issue military wide, not just on opposite sex. I believe you can be whomever you feel you should be, on that note however, your gender identity should be based on genetelia. If you have male genetals and identify as female, you should still bunk with the men (as an example). Once a sex change is completed, you should move accordingly. Regardless, this shouldn't be as difficult a conversation as many make it to be. Different isn't always bad.
(2)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
And the facts state that birthing folks with the same gentilelia does not prevent sexual assault.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
SFC (Join to see), when you start your post with comments about sexual assault and end it with being assigned billets based on gender it strongly implies that you believe that it does. Otherwise, you would just say that you think billeting should be done based on which bits you physically have.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I think common sense should prevail in these situations. Elective surgeries of just about any kind should be avoided. I see gender reassignment surgeries (GRS), tattoos, piercings, and many cosmetic plastic surgeries as unnecessary and just plain risky. Why carve up your body when it's medically unnecessary? Then there are all the hormone supplements and chemicals that get pumped into you as part of the overall procedure ...and who knows what the long term effects of that is. I just don't see how it contributes to overall military readiness. The fact is: that when on a deployment, you are not going to have access to state-of-the-art health care. So... if you run into complications, you are probably going to get shipped home and someone else gets tapped to take your place. Granted, plastic surgery may be necessary to repair an injury or an actual birth defect, but in these cases the medical necessity far outweighs the risk. I think medical history will look back on GRS as something akin to a lobotomy or the use of bleeding to cure disease. It makes more sense in these situations for medical science to be looking at the "North end", and not the "South end". This is probably not the answer you were looking for, but its an honest one coming from experience dealing with several medical conditions that are no fun (i.e. cancer etc)
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think the main focus needs to be on cost effectiveness and readiness. Should the DOD foot the bill for transition surgery if somebody identifies as a different gender than they currently have? Does they DOD need to provide them time off to transition? How does gender dysphoria effect the readiness of personnel? Are there significant issues and costs that would affect their ability to deploy?
The services frequently deny entry based on physical or mental health reasons, and they frequently separate personnel for medical issues. Is there any benefit to recruiting and/or retaining transgender personnel, VS other medical or mental health issues? Or is it all just about being "politically correct" no matter the cost?
The services frequently deny entry based on physical or mental health reasons, and they frequently separate personnel for medical issues. Is there any benefit to recruiting and/or retaining transgender personnel, VS other medical or mental health issues? Or is it all just about being "politically correct" no matter the cost?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Sharing bunks and using bathrooms can be some of the greatest issues as far as I see. besides, what showers SHOULD they be utilizing? Potential for sexual offenses?? Let's not even go there. Tough call indeed.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
PO1 (Join to see), according to the stats I seen yesterday at my annual SAPR brief. Maybe males shouldn't bunk/shower with males. This is because male on male rape is the most prevent in the DoD.
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland, I guess in this case we ought to build some documented evidence. Meaning that we should integrate trans into military the best way possible and closely monitor for signs of abuse and assaults. Otherwise it's very hard to predict as to where this is going.
Think about it: females in the Ranger school. All have failed. Now we have some concrete evidence to work with, not assumptions, stipulations, or political appeasement. Same goes for trans members, got to build some real-life evidence in order to make any assessment.
Now on a broader scale, will this weaken our overall military readiness? I highly doubt it. Most of us in the service, especially on a leadership level are still focused on mission-first-people-always mental set. So I predict that the impact is going to be minimal. Better no impact than even little of course, but this is America, land of equal opportunity.
Think about it: females in the Ranger school. All have failed. Now we have some concrete evidence to work with, not assumptions, stipulations, or political appeasement. Same goes for trans members, got to build some real-life evidence in order to make any assessment.
Now on a broader scale, will this weaken our overall military readiness? I highly doubt it. Most of us in the service, especially on a leadership level are still focused on mission-first-people-always mental set. So I predict that the impact is going to be minimal. Better no impact than even little of course, but this is America, land of equal opportunity.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
PO1 (Join to see), much like DADT, they already silently serving beside us. You are right, I think the biggest hurdle will be how we assign rooms and bathroom. Someone else mentioned just do full starship troopers.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I've always felt that military service (or almost any job/career) should be based on ability. I don't care about your race, religion, gender, mental state, physical condition, etc.
If you can perform X, Y, Z adequately, you are suitable for job 1. If you are unable to perform X, Y, or Z adequately, you are not suitable for job 1. Look to something else.
Is that discriminatory? Certainly. If you're blind, you can't be a fighter pilot. Doesn't matter that you want to; you're incapable.
Your sexuality shouldn't enter into it in the first place, unless it somehow precludes you from being able to perform the task.
On the other hand, we've (most societies across history) always segregated males and females based on the concept of keeping the traditional 'preferred' sexual partners apart when they're using toilets, showers, sleeping quarters, some professions, etc.
When you start accepting (or more accurately, acknowledging) homosexual, transsexual, transgender individuals as distinct orientations in any society, what sort of segregation is acceptable?
Do we set up separate facilities for every permutation of sexuality? Seems unlikely that we're going to establish individual Basic Training groups for hetero males, hetero females, homo males, homo females, trans males, and on and on. And don't forget half a dozen or more additional sets of bathrooms, shower facilities and sleeping quarters.
I would prefer to see segregation based on any gender end entirely. We're all people; everyone in one big pot. Unfortunately, we can't seem to stop raping and harassing each other even with all the current separations and laws in place, so I don't foresee humankind evolving mentally to the point where this is possible any time soon.
If we were capable of being decent to each other as a matter of course, rather than as the exception, this would never have become an issue in the first place.
If you can perform X, Y, Z adequately, you are suitable for job 1. If you are unable to perform X, Y, or Z adequately, you are not suitable for job 1. Look to something else.
Is that discriminatory? Certainly. If you're blind, you can't be a fighter pilot. Doesn't matter that you want to; you're incapable.
Your sexuality shouldn't enter into it in the first place, unless it somehow precludes you from being able to perform the task.
On the other hand, we've (most societies across history) always segregated males and females based on the concept of keeping the traditional 'preferred' sexual partners apart when they're using toilets, showers, sleeping quarters, some professions, etc.
When you start accepting (or more accurately, acknowledging) homosexual, transsexual, transgender individuals as distinct orientations in any society, what sort of segregation is acceptable?
Do we set up separate facilities for every permutation of sexuality? Seems unlikely that we're going to establish individual Basic Training groups for hetero males, hetero females, homo males, homo females, trans males, and on and on. And don't forget half a dozen or more additional sets of bathrooms, shower facilities and sleeping quarters.
I would prefer to see segregation based on any gender end entirely. We're all people; everyone in one big pot. Unfortunately, we can't seem to stop raping and harassing each other even with all the current separations and laws in place, so I don't foresee humankind evolving mentally to the point where this is possible any time soon.
If we were capable of being decent to each other as a matter of course, rather than as the exception, this would never have become an issue in the first place.
(0)
(0)
1stSgt Edward Jackson
It is not as simple as you put it, TSgt. Our military forces are unique in our society, they have but one real mission, to kill people and break things, that's it. Yeah, we do 'international meals on wheels and wings' and do 'humanitarian missions', but that is only after the POTUS or SecDef orders us to do them, after consultation with the JCS. We do not use assets, airplanes, ships, vehicles, and troops if they are needed in a conflict the US is involved in for humanitarian missions.
Our forces accomplish our one and only real mission through a system called team work. Team work requires trust and focus on the mission at hand. You cannot fully trust someone who has a mental disorder like being 'confused about who they are'. Nor can they fully focus upon the mission when the chips are down.
Finally, There is always the question of capture by opposing military forces or terrorist groups. That is always possible no matter what your job is and no matter how well you do it. How do you think an OpFor will treat our transgender or gay troops? In many societies around the world, such people are openly killed/murdered, sometimes brutally after torture for extended periods of time.
Yup, ability to do the job is part of being in the military, a small part. The important things are competence, trust, focus, and of course TEAM WORK. To many people think their job in the military forces is 9-5, Monday through Friday. Nothing is further from the truth, you are 'ON DUTY' 24/7
Our forces accomplish our one and only real mission through a system called team work. Team work requires trust and focus on the mission at hand. You cannot fully trust someone who has a mental disorder like being 'confused about who they are'. Nor can they fully focus upon the mission when the chips are down.
Finally, There is always the question of capture by opposing military forces or terrorist groups. That is always possible no matter what your job is and no matter how well you do it. How do you think an OpFor will treat our transgender or gay troops? In many societies around the world, such people are openly killed/murdered, sometimes brutally after torture for extended periods of time.
Yup, ability to do the job is part of being in the military, a small part. The important things are competence, trust, focus, and of course TEAM WORK. To many people think their job in the military forces is 9-5, Monday through Friday. Nothing is further from the truth, you are 'ON DUTY' 24/7
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I understand what you're getting at Shirt, but part of the qualifications for combat duty should be an ability to function in a unit made up of American soldiers, whether they are gay/straight, christian/muslim/atheist, male/female, Army/Navy/AF etc., regardless of individual personal preferences. That freedom, unity, inclusion and acceptance are things we are entrusted to protect and defend. I can surely understand concerns with a 50+ y/o husband and father of 7 who believes he's a 6 y/o girl (for example) watching your back, and yes, an in-depth mental health workup is clearly justified in such cases.
What our enemies may do to us is a subject each individual must grapple with on their own terms, and a possible consequence they accept as part of their service. We don't hesitate to send non-muslim soldiers into harm's way in SWA where they are the 'infidel', and likely to suffer for it in those circumstances.
"The important things are competence, trust, focus, and of course TEAM WORK." Unquestionably, Yes, but our individual differences in color, sex, religion, orientation, organization, origin and so on do not (or at the least, absolutely Should Not) preclude anyone from serving their country and standing side by side with the white male conservative christian soldiers that our military traditionally 'accepts'.
What our enemies may do to us is a subject each individual must grapple with on their own terms, and a possible consequence they accept as part of their service. We don't hesitate to send non-muslim soldiers into harm's way in SWA where they are the 'infidel', and likely to suffer for it in those circumstances.
"The important things are competence, trust, focus, and of course TEAM WORK." Unquestionably, Yes, but our individual differences in color, sex, religion, orientation, organization, origin and so on do not (or at the least, absolutely Should Not) preclude anyone from serving their country and standing side by side with the white male conservative christian soldiers that our military traditionally 'accepts'.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google