Posted on Dec 18, 2014
If Army policy changes to permit service by transgender/intersex personnel, what accommodations should leaders consider?
23.3K
350
124
5
5
0
The SECDEF and SEC Air Force have both stated publicly that they are open to the possibility. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/10/air-force-chief-suggests-transgender-ban-may-eventually-be-lifted/
Posted in these groups: 
Transgender
Transgender
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 31
21
21
0
No accommodations. Everything 100% unisex... Boys, girls, LGBQT... Same quarters, latrines, showers, doctors... 100% honesty and transparency.
(21)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
SGT (Join to see) ,
Is this a "you wash my back, I'll wash yours" scenario? Or do you just want to show off your "Tiger stripes"?
Still, I see it as an incentive for the force to stay in shape, regardless of orientation...
Is this a "you wash my back, I'll wash yours" scenario? Or do you just want to show off your "Tiger stripes"?
Still, I see it as an incentive for the force to stay in shape, regardless of orientation...
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CW2 Joseph Evans, yes. We shall go with "Tiger Stripes" because it sounds awesome. :)
(5)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
SGT (Join to see), LOL, you go girl, You earned them. ;)
Yeah, I know, oversimplified and cheesy... but respect, I can't do it.
Yeah, I know, oversimplified and cheesy... but respect, I can't do it.
(4)
(0)
17
17
0
SSG (Join to see)
I agree with CPT Williams, although my thoughts resemble the same sentiments I had on the issue of women in Combat Arms.
Make no exception to the standards and no special accommodations that cost the military money.
I have worked with plenty of exceptional military professionals of different races/genders/religions etc.. All I care about is if you perform your duties as a soldier and your personal life has no negative impact on your soldiering. I have worked with women who swatted on mission 5 ft from me while I pulled guard for them from around the corner. I have even worked with one who beat me on the men's extended scale (what kind of human can do 125 sit-ups anyways?!)
When I was an infantry squad leader I would have welcomed any high performing soldier into my squad and protected them from any sort of harassment or other maltreatment.
Make no exception to the standards and no special accommodations that cost the military money.
I have worked with plenty of exceptional military professionals of different races/genders/religions etc.. All I care about is if you perform your duties as a soldier and your personal life has no negative impact on your soldiering. I have worked with women who swatted on mission 5 ft from me while I pulled guard for them from around the corner. I have even worked with one who beat me on the men's extended scale (what kind of human can do 125 sit-ups anyways?!)
When I was an infantry squad leader I would have welcomed any high performing soldier into my squad and protected them from any sort of harassment or other maltreatment.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
It's actually not as pricey as you'd think; furthermore, most trans* personnel are more than happy to foot the bill themselves. All they want is the same opportunity that African Americans, cisgender women, and the LGB community have: the opportunity to serve OPENLY AND WITH PRIDE IN WHO THEY ARE.
(1)
(0)
15
15
0
We can outmaneuver all of this very simply: equality. Same standards, same opportunities, same requirements, same uniforms, same PT tests, same MOS options, same school options, same haircut/make-up/jewelry/ standards, same partner benefits standards the only accommodations/differences necessary are those truly medical: biological females need different medical care in some specific cases than biological males, and each should get what their bodies need. Voluntary surgeries or therapies (whether you want Testosterone as a biologically born male with low T or a biologically born Female identifying as a man) of any kind should be at personal expense. Nothing else should be different.
Problem(s) solved.
Anything short of this means a thicket of thorns populated by hornets' nests.
Problem(s) solved.
Anything short of this means a thicket of thorns populated by hornets' nests.
(15)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Sir, the problem is that GRS is medically necessary; that's why Medicare now pays for it. though most trans* personnel would rather pay for it themselves so as to not lok like leeches to the government.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SPC Dawn Cassidy, Can you explain your comment about this GRS being medically necessary? Why is it necessary, they were born the way they are but psychologically want to be something else, so it seems more a psychological issue than a medical necessity! If they want GRS after they join the Military they can pay for it out of their own pocket. When you join, you join as either male/female, I don't think theyhave a slot for ?. Are we expected to start doing DNA tests to determine what or who someone is?
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
Um, none? Whatever their legal gender is, treat them as that. (note that legal gender and biological gender are not always the same thing)
(9)
(0)
TSgt Jackie Jones
Thank you- it was an example and I guess a rumor. It does happen though, and that was my point.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
If DNA says one is make them DNA is not wrong. Can anomalies happen in embryonic development. Absolute. Not only with gender but in othe physical, mental, and emotional processes. But no man born with a penis, then cuts it off because they suffer an identity crisis can expect other thinking human beings to accept him as woman. I fully understand actuall medical cases where proper development did not happen because of chromosomal irregularities. But most transgendered are not of the medical category.
I went to school with a person born with all the parts of a male. And over time, and once puberty kicked in, what was thought to be an extremely small penis actually was a extremely Large Clitorous. The development of the Bud that all embryos have didn't happen for this person until puberty, instead if during Justation. From 13-18 "he" naturally developed into a beautiful female. It was discovered in CT scan ( trying to figure out large breast development in a boy), that there was a uterus and overies. This person was a friend of mine. I know how difficult it was for her to go through this. She did not elect to turn into a female when she thought she was male. She actually told me later that it actually made sense to her why when she was in 5-7 grade she was attracted to boys. It bothered her when she thought she was a boy. Now she is married and has a family, her biological children.
So yes I believe in examining things from a logical medical stand point. But, I have no sympathy or tolerance for someone who is gender confused and does not have a viable medical reason for it. It mocks those who actually have real chromosomal issues.
I went to school with a person born with all the parts of a male. And over time, and once puberty kicked in, what was thought to be an extremely small penis actually was a extremely Large Clitorous. The development of the Bud that all embryos have didn't happen for this person until puberty, instead if during Justation. From 13-18 "he" naturally developed into a beautiful female. It was discovered in CT scan ( trying to figure out large breast development in a boy), that there was a uterus and overies. This person was a friend of mine. I know how difficult it was for her to go through this. She did not elect to turn into a female when she thought she was male. She actually told me later that it actually made sense to her why when she was in 5-7 grade she was attracted to boys. It bothered her when she thought she was a boy. Now she is married and has a family, her biological children.
So yes I believe in examining things from a logical medical stand point. But, I have no sympathy or tolerance for someone who is gender confused and does not have a viable medical reason for it. It mocks those who actually have real chromosomal issues.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Oh and thanks for the Hot Pics of Jamie Lee Curtis. Not sure this is the place to post such pictures. Who knows who will file a sexual harassment charge against you.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SFC (Join to see). I understand and sympathize with your feelings. Indeed, I'm not so certain the medical establishment is doing the overwhelming majority of patients presenting these issues any favor by doing the politically correct thing . . . just going along without making any effort to challenge possible delusional psychoses. Indeed, even gay and lesbian groups and individuals present challenges to integration of these individuals into their organizations. That said, it is no longer socially, culturally, politically, or legally appropriate to question these transitions . . . we all must adapt to the changing world least we be discarded as obsolete bigots. In the end, how much do these changes really matter . . . as long as they are entirely honest, faithful, loyal, and willing to fight, be wounded, and potentially die for our country? Warmest Regards, Sandy
7
7
0
Sorry I posted this to a specific post. I wanted a bit broader posting (because I am such an egotist that I want to make sure everyone knows what I am thinking...NOT). I wanted to have a bit broader dissemination:
Not sure about accommodations. In my view, a Soldier is a Soldier is a Soldier. If a Soldier is persecuted/hazed because of something other than some action that brings discredit to the unit by their purposeful action or stupidity, the unit should look at themselves as a bully. I have seen enough Soldiers that I wasn't sure of their gender (either way) in my days that do their jobs very well that I don't care about the whole LGBT thing. That's personal, same as inter-racial marriage, which was illegal less than 50 years ago in some states. Think about that.
Thank you for your patience with my error.
Not sure about accommodations. In my view, a Soldier is a Soldier is a Soldier. If a Soldier is persecuted/hazed because of something other than some action that brings discredit to the unit by their purposeful action or stupidity, the unit should look at themselves as a bully. I have seen enough Soldiers that I wasn't sure of their gender (either way) in my days that do their jobs very well that I don't care about the whole LGBT thing. That's personal, same as inter-racial marriage, which was illegal less than 50 years ago in some states. Think about that.
Thank you for your patience with my error.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
This reminds me of a situation months ago:
And there I was at AT 2014: Advanced party. Driving a truck. My TC was a male. We were to report to a specified barracks and off-load equipment.
Arrived and mission complete.
There was not a single person, male or female, occupying this barracks. We go in and head to the latrine. The same latrine. I immediately go to the sink to wash my hands. He walks in behind me...and promptly turns around to go find another latrine to do do the same thing I was doing.
In a split second, I volleyed between the idea that my bare hands were fabulously sexy and the fact that my buddy so feared a potential SHARP complaint that he was willing to scour the base for another sink.
And this has happened before.
Only female at HQ. I had to pee. Walk into a latrine. Walked out to a sign being taped up "FEMALES ONLY". Literally. I had either contaminated it with girl germs or higher-ups decided that Armageddon wasn't happening until after AT...with you know, the onset prompted by men and women peeing in the same spot.
Or the scandal that happened when an NCO could see women in the barracks in our BARE T-SHIRTS (oh my) and had us tape garbage bags over the blinds.
Most Americans are like 15 year old kids in the sexuality department. We can't even say "penis" or "vagina" without going red in the face. Let alone, actually seeing an anatomically correct human, outside of youporn searches. And with the "wrong parts" in our locker rooms! Minds blown!
And there I was at AT 2014: Advanced party. Driving a truck. My TC was a male. We were to report to a specified barracks and off-load equipment.
Arrived and mission complete.
There was not a single person, male or female, occupying this barracks. We go in and head to the latrine. The same latrine. I immediately go to the sink to wash my hands. He walks in behind me...and promptly turns around to go find another latrine to do do the same thing I was doing.
In a split second, I volleyed between the idea that my bare hands were fabulously sexy and the fact that my buddy so feared a potential SHARP complaint that he was willing to scour the base for another sink.
And this has happened before.
Only female at HQ. I had to pee. Walk into a latrine. Walked out to a sign being taped up "FEMALES ONLY". Literally. I had either contaminated it with girl germs or higher-ups decided that Armageddon wasn't happening until after AT...with you know, the onset prompted by men and women peeing in the same spot.
Or the scandal that happened when an NCO could see women in the barracks in our BARE T-SHIRTS (oh my) and had us tape garbage bags over the blinds.
Most Americans are like 15 year old kids in the sexuality department. We can't even say "penis" or "vagina" without going red in the face. Let alone, actually seeing an anatomically correct human, outside of youporn searches. And with the "wrong parts" in our locker rooms! Minds blown!
(6)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
See, Germany is old-fashioned. We are decades ahead of them concerning the fact that pendulous fat sacks full of glands dedicated to making milk are disgusting.
They need to get with the program.
They need to get with the program.
(4)
(0)
SGT Michael Glenn
TSgt Hall, I am at that point in my life atm, have been into photography since High school and always did scenery, now I am wanting to move forward into people, I have done a few but never anything serious and never full nude.
(1)
(0)
SrA Kerry Gilligan-Kerner
I had been stationed at the USAFA for about a year, when I went out for my first 4 day MedRed exercise. Unbeknownst to me, the Orderly Rm personnel assumed I was male, due to the fact that my first name is spelled in the masculine form. Well, you could've heard a pin drop, when I walked in that tent...the looks on those men's faces, were priceless!! They acted like I walked into their H.S. locker room after football practice! Attempts to find me new accommodations were futile, so our Base Dental Surgeon(also assigned to this tent), made it a point to strategically place me, between two of my coworkers and very good friends. The guys eventually got used to having me around and everything was going great, until the second night after light out. SSgt H asked me if I remembered to grab my boots and put them in the cot with me. My reply..."No I didn't and I'm not...so I'm telling you guys right now, if anybody messes with my boots tonight, there's gonna be hell to pay!" Moral of the story...when it's lights out and you're bunking in mixed company and you say 'boots'...make damn sure you articulate, cause chances are, there's a Colonel in your tent with impaired hearing!! Needless to say, I NEVER lived that one down:-)
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
They should receive no special treatment. They will have to live by the rules and regulations of our Armed Forces as all others do. When this category of service members can not comply then, time to send them back to civilian life. I would like to remind everyone that folks like these are currently in your ranks already and have served along side of you in combat. The service members i am talking about however are smart enough to keep the not so norm under cover so they can serve. This is nothing new. If ordered leaders will have to adapt and carry out the orders that are given and enforce Military standards.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
Not a single one. When they enlist and have their physical that will tell you what accommodations they will get. NO SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS...PERIOD.
(4)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC (Join to see).
I think a lot depends on what accommodations are proposed . . . how command responds . . . and how our troops respond after being informed about command expectations.
If the estimate of 15,500 already serving transgender troops is accurate this may not be so much of an issue as it might have been many decades ago . . . when our military was unquestionably and overwhelmingly a white male heterosexual christian society. Those primitive intolerant racist sexist medieval times are very long gone.
As it stands now . . . twelve major national militaries around the world now permit transgender people to serve openly in their defense forces. Britain permitted transgender people to serve openly since 1999 . . . Australia permitted transgender service since 2010. Each generation has become increasingly tolerant of individual differences . . . intersex / transgender status are just two more arbitrary interpersonal classification differences.
The successful integration of so many women, minorities, non-christian, gay, lesbian service members into an increasingly wide range of staff, operator, and command roles in our military suggests we may have been too narrow minded when we adopted formal medical regulations discriminating between broad classes of people.
If the exceptionally conservative USDOS can modify its prior discriminatory standard . . . so can the USDOD.
Who cares to which gender you identify/are attracted to if you are outstanding staff, operator, or commander?
We have far more important things to worry about than whether some document says you are M / F / I / X !!!
Warmest Regards, Sandy
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/06/142922.htm
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143160.pdf
SSgt Nicole Biscoe
I think a lot depends on what accommodations are proposed . . . how command responds . . . and how our troops respond after being informed about command expectations.
If the estimate of 15,500 already serving transgender troops is accurate this may not be so much of an issue as it might have been many decades ago . . . when our military was unquestionably and overwhelmingly a white male heterosexual christian society. Those primitive intolerant racist sexist medieval times are very long gone.
As it stands now . . . twelve major national militaries around the world now permit transgender people to serve openly in their defense forces. Britain permitted transgender people to serve openly since 1999 . . . Australia permitted transgender service since 2010. Each generation has become increasingly tolerant of individual differences . . . intersex / transgender status are just two more arbitrary interpersonal classification differences.
The successful integration of so many women, minorities, non-christian, gay, lesbian service members into an increasingly wide range of staff, operator, and command roles in our military suggests we may have been too narrow minded when we adopted formal medical regulations discriminating between broad classes of people.
If the exceptionally conservative USDOS can modify its prior discriminatory standard . . . so can the USDOD.
Who cares to which gender you identify/are attracted to if you are outstanding staff, operator, or commander?
We have far more important things to worry about than whether some document says you are M / F / I / X !!!
Warmest Regards, Sandy
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/06/142922.htm
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143160.pdf
SSgt Nicole Biscoe
3
3
0
We shouldn't be concentrating on this kind of garbage when we see all this down-sizing.
(3)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
The military already has accomodations for males and females. IF a transgender enlists as a male...he's a male. If a transgender enlists as a female, she's a female. Latrines and shower doors are marked, but wait, there are no more bay type latrines and showers. So what's the problem. Don't let the news baiting media take control of it. Explain it once and then stop talking about it. If question comes up again...Just say, question has been asked and answered...next!
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google