How will we, should we, proceed on this? Transgender troops in direct combat MOSs.

2015-07-15T09:26:01-04:00

I know I have posted about this earlier... when it first hit the headlines, and I know CW2 Lindsey Muller is trending on what our thoughts are. And others like TSgt Hunter Logan too.

This not about whether this is good idea, or going to happen (I believe this going to happen), this is more about the mechanics of this. In particular area, what does the military do, when they lift the ban, with a transgender woman (still a biological male) serving in one of the 200k or so jobs still closed to women?

What do you think will happen?

I am confused as how we did already consider what will do, when we lift this ban. I am hoping we have thought this thru, especially in light of the 2013-16 pentagon study on the integration women into direct combat jobs.

http://www.stripes.com/transgender-decision-raises-question-of-combat-jobs-1.357902

Transgender decision raises question of combat jobs

Will a soldier who was born female but lives as a man be permitted to hold one of more than 200,000 armor, infantry, artillery and special ops positions that still prohibit women?

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Jul 15 at 2015 9:27 AM

2015-07-15T09:27:14-04:00

Does this mean we can all use the female PT scale now?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 9:54 AM

2015-07-15T09:54:18-04:00

CW5 Charlie Poulton and SSG Kevin McCulley have already turned this in to a PT issue, which I feel is the least of the integration issues. That issue is solved easily, in my opinion. Gender at birth is the scale used for the APFT. I've mentioned before in a different thread on this topic that I highly doubt we're going to experience males pretending to identify as women just to get a better PT score.

The issues I feel we're facing will be more in line with discrimination and violence. I don't believe that these issues will be easily dealt with using a death by PowerPoint approach either. It will take time, but the force will adapt as we have to every other change that's been thrown at us. If a transgender individual wishes to join the military, they're very likely already aware of the struggles in front of them. Likewise, for those individuals already serving that make the difficult decision to go public with it, they are even more informed on what lies ahead for them.

Regardless of each of our individual views on the subject, decisions will be made far above our levels. It's our job to make sure those decisions are put in to action appropriately. The leaders at the national level are already working the what-ifs so that we don't have to. It's not our job to question the orders, but to execute them when they're received.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 15 at 2015 10:25 AM

2015-07-15T10:25:43-04:00

COL Charles Williams I believe that the service branches will get through this issue and the concerns that have been raised on a number of different subjects (housing, Physical Fitness, MOS that women can and can't be in, medication and prescriptions necessary, the whole area of medical treatment and physicals, psychological training for professional within the medical field; disorder, razing, and discrimination complaints against transgender and the handling of these complaints, chaplain duties and responsibilities, and even right down to mandatory urinalysis (Drug Testing) Programs; and the list may go on. All of these areas and more will go through detailed scrutiny over the next 6 months and most of it will be flushed out before any band is lifted and the final regulations and decisions are released. My personal feeling is whatever an individual’s gender, if they can meet the standards of the required specialties or MOS then they should be allowed to serve no matter whether they are in gender transition or they have fully transitioned. If they have already served this country for a good number of years then they should be allowed to finish their careers with peace of mind that they will be treated with respect, no matter what their final gender is or will be. The transgender issue is much deeper than most of us really understand unless you've walked in those shoes, so it is difficult for me to even image what they have gone through their entire life growing up not understanding what was going on with their bodies, minds, and emotions. I will not judge any gender or individual indifferently and I don't think any of our fellow service members should either, especially if they truly don't understand everything about it why it happened, or how it came to transpire.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Jul 15 at 2015 10:26 AM

2015-07-15T10:26:35-04:00

I've got a navy chief buddy who just told me how two of his heterosexual Sailors just got married to get the BAH... Troops will take advantage, as they always have.. especially the sans-moral millennials. Troops will claim female PT standards when it suits them.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 15 at 2015 11:13 AM

2015-07-15T11:13:24-04:00

Sir,
First and foremost, we will do what we always do, make a policy and adhere to it. We did it with DADT, then with the revocation of DADT. As American Society changes, so will us, as a reflection of American Society change.

Transgender People make up a Statistically small section of American Society. As such, their impact on the Military will be very small. Just like the impact of women on the Military was small (15% service-wide, even though 50% of population). Just like the impact of Homosexuals was a "Non-issue" to quote one of our Generals.

It is my belief that "we" (the military) are making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill because we do not understand the issue. That is not to say valid concerns are not being raised, and lots of great questions are not being asked, however there are lots of extremely "poor taste" questions being asked as well, that based solely on ignorance. This statement is not being addressed at anyone in particular, however when people (in general) do not understand things, they tend to ask EVERYTHING, to come to grips as quickly as possible. There is just so much bad information out there regarding transgender, it is almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Simply put a Transgender person, is someone who does not "identify" as their birth gender. That's it. It does not mean they want to "transition" (become) the other gender (physically). Many people link the two, but that is not necessarily correct.

As for DoD or Military policy, it will really be a matter of accommodation. What accommodation will be made? That is the question.

"If" we acknowledge that Transgender is not "Transitioning" then opening Serving is not an issue. Birth gender is used for all normal standards, whether PT, Health, Uniform, etc.

The complexities arise when "transitioning" (aka Hormone therapy) come into play. That alters "physiology" which is a Medical Issue. We already make Medical Accommodations based on Physical & Health issues. If someone is not able to run, we grant partial PFTs or use a Swim test instead. This would be no different. However, the DoD may just "prohibit" a Service Member from "transitioning" WHILE Serving. This eliminates nearly all of the (valid) issues that many Service Members have presented regarding integration.

As for quarters, and hygiene facilities, my personal take, is that we are stuck in the 1950s, and we need to move away from the "bay" philosophy, and just integrate already. We need to either provide fully individualized facilities across the board, or we need to go completely co-ed. Either will remove "gender bias" (a term which I am not fond of).

In essence, we are making this issue far more complex than we need to. We are assuming things that need not be assumed. We are falling into the same traps we fell into several times before regarding integration (Race, Gender, Sexual Preference), which have proven to be non-issues. Sooner or later, we just need to break the habit, and realize being "militant" about things isn't a 100% job.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jul 15 at 2015 4:48 PM

2015-07-15T16:48:58-04:00

COL Charles Williams, my personal opinion is that women should be allowed in all MOS's and it should not matter what gender someone is. What should matter is their loyalty to their peers and their country and their ability to do the job they choose. Since this question addresses the actual ability part, I understand the PT issue will be hammered out ad nauseum by about 1000 high ranking people, panels formed, people will over think it, ect... I figure the standard should be merged in the middle and call it good, but lets leave that be. Each MOS has a job description in regulation. Each MOS has specific equipment that must be handled proficiently both physically and with technical competence. If a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine can physically do the job and handle the technical side as well I think it should not matter what gender they are. If they can't handle the job physically but can pass whatever PT ends up being, then they should re-class.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 8:24 PM

2015-07-15T20:24:07-04:00

I know this is a touchy subject for a lot of people, but what I believe is that if a woman can hold her own in a combat situation and be able to meet the physical requirements for such a situation, then they should be allowed in. Although, from a genetics stand point, women tend to be weaker than men, I would not let them in. As a firefighter, our job is physically demanding, less than a combat situation, but you are still on the fire ground, pulling of lines, dragging bodies out, staying on that hand line spitting out 150 to 200 psi, etc. Can a woman do it? Yes. Are most women physically capable? No. What everything boils down to is this: Can a woman withstand the intensity, the adversity, the physical/mental/ and emotional portion that a man can, could, or is willing to do? That is the real question I believe.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jul 16 at 2015 7:55 AM

2015-07-16T07:55:27-04:00

Don't even care. There are so many other things that should have priority over this.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2015 12:15 PM

2015-10-23T12:15:19-04:00

I don't care what you are. As long as you can engage and kill the enemy with no hesitation, then I say you're welcome by my standards.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2017 1:00 PM

2017-04-11T13:00:32-04:00

it is a bad idea and they should all be arrested and treated like in the 50s, 60s, and 70s kicked out with a bcd or dishonorable discharge

Response by PO3 Scot StClair made Jun 2 at 2021 7:46 AM

2021-06-02T07:46:35-04:00

Doesn't the Constitution (and the UCMJ) already cover individual rights, lawful orders, etc. Plus codes etc covered by each branch and every command? Just like more gun laws, let's just use the ones we have and NOT make special provisions for exceptions to the rules, and when there are exceptions use the routes established? I mean they've worked for how long now, AND these established guides have made our military the best and strongest in history. Now is this about to change as well, just because of a few variants? I hope not. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much for individual rights. And those rights, when they're not compatible to our fighting unit effectiveness, need to be observed outside of special considerations where everyone gets a participation trophy. Suck it up buttercup.