If Army policy changes to permit service by transgender/intersex personnel, what accommodations should leaders consider?

Military has changed for politics, look at the double standards politicians are running the show. Meanwhile, General Officers are playing the loyalty game for promotion. We need old school leadership like Colin Powell.

Would a man that thinks he's a woman receive a PT test under the male or female standards? Would they use the female or male locker rooms / quarters. If a woman who thought she was a man be required to do 70+ push ups to max? Should a man who thinks they are a woman be allowed into combat MOSs? What Class-A type uniform does that person wear? Should a man that thinks they are a woman be allowed to search a Muslim female and visa versa because I think we try to stay gender specific now when at all possible.

I have my own opinions, but I won't share them here. I think there are other things that have to be considered first before we even consider accommodations.

I'm just not sure I'm ok with "accommodating" anybody. After an injury that I received, I was unable to serve in certain units as a result. One of the basic tenants of the military is conformity to standards. There's always talk about double standards and there always will be. The biggest issue I hear complaints about is the different PT standards between males and females. Whatever, time to get over that. But I still have two questions that I would like somebody to answer:

1. Is there a possibility that a person who reassigns their sex from one gender to another could have a negative impact on medical services received in a battlefield like trauma? Before the snarky comments start, I understand that humans are humans regardless of gender. BUT, biological males have prostates, biological women don't...same holds true for biological females and ovaries...Still same question about medical services.

2. Resiliency isn't about feeling "happy" in so much as it is a sort of mental toughness. Since the repeal of don't ask don't tell has there been any study of the impact of individual readiness of Soldiers within the LBGT community? My thoughts are that it has to be a significant emotional event to both be able to "come out" and also to serve openly. Are we meeting the mark irt resiliency?

These next questions are hypothetical, but, still within the realm of culture change:

1. Do we allow polygamy? Some faiths and certain lifestyles find multiple spouses acceptable. Do we accommodate polygamists?

2. What about adultery? It's still a UCMJ'able event. If the military is going to take the stance that leaders have no business in the private life of a service-member, then should we stay out of marriage all together?

I'm ultimately concerned that the glue that bonds the military irt cohesion and esprit de corps is being negatively impacted because of personal opinions rooted in emotion. And it's just not as easy to tell everybody to shut-up and color or to leave your personal opinions at the door. After all it is an opinion that transgender be allowed to serve openly, just like it's an opinion to not allow it.

I'll be honest, I never had any issues associating with, or serving alongside anyone, regardless of how they identified themselves. If someone's already gone through GRS (Gender Reassignment Surgery), & is fully recovered, with the only thing medically speaking is taking their hormones, then I don't see any issues during deployments or otherwise. Dermapatches & pills can be prescribed & issued for 90-120 days at a time & the individual responsible for their own medicating. Prescriptions can be requested & mailed out in advance as needed, with minimal burden on field medics.

If they're already fully in their gender reassignment, lodging & any other requirements should match those of anyone else of their gender status. Currently however, there's no magic wand to wave for addressing accommodation needs for TG in transition if actively serving.

But, the question raised a lot of issues, so I started researching. And to be honest, even with today's technology, I don't see how it's possible for an actively serving Military member to remain in service and deployable during a transition period of Gender Reassignment.

Other concerns:
Following GRS, issues that might arise: Surgical & emergency treatment considerations in the event of battlefield injuries? (My research didn't address anatomical concerns).

Also, is the individual at a higher risk if identified by the enemy, because medications would likely be withheld, and some cultures would not be humane in their treatment of POWs, especially in say, the middle east?

Let me explain why I reached my conclusions, by using an example of something I'm personally familiar with:

While actively serving, and becoming pregnant, I had to be reassigned to administrative or light duties, and was non-deployable. Then giving birth (with no complications), 6 weeks to recover & return to duty, & in the case of flying, a period of retraining ensued before I was back up to full qualification. Plus, fairly quickly, I also had to lose any additional weight in order to stay in regs. That's a large chunk of time - per pregnancy. And if I'm not able to fly, that puts my squadron short one flight engineer for operational purposes. It's not like they can just swap me out for one of the admins & let him or her take over my duties in the meantime, right?

Let's fast forward a couple of years... I've had my children, and know I don't want anymore. So I request tubal ligation surgery. Is this elective surgery? It's not medically necessary for any reason other than pregnancy prevention, which I could also take pills for instead. But, my request is approved, great?

However, regulations stipulate that in order for me to have the surgery to prevent further pregnancies, I'm required to submit to 6 months of counseling, with my spouse if married, to ensure I/we are in fact really ready for such a step. (Yes, you have to both concur - essentially your spouse has to give permission for you to make the choice to no longer have children).
Then there's the surgery, and a period of recovery & followup appointments, which may include some additional counseling before being cleared to return to full duty once again.

In & of itself, the counseling period described doesn't prevent me from my duties, counseling appts can be scheduled around my mission, but if I get deployed in the meantime, my counseling would get put ON HOLD - which means, so does my surgery request. Essentially I'd have to start over again upon my return, because, who knows what might have occurred in the meantime that may have caused either myself or my spouse to change our minds?

Taking my example into consideration, these following comments are based on the research I read regarding male to female gender reassignment surgery (GRS):

Logistically speaking, I don't see how GRS is possible during service, because you're looking at the possibility of a FOUR YEAR minimum for a complete transition, which not only includes medical treatment, but also ongoing lab work & mental health therapy & counseling throughout (& possibly following) the entire process.

Essentially, GRS should either already be fully behind the individual before they enlist; or they could submit a request to be honorably discharged with a reenlistment code that identifies a medical clearance upon reentry, but otherwise doesn't restrict them or require a waiver to rejoin the service; and thus take the time necessary to complete their GRS journey. (Or just not reenlist & come back afterwards?)

Then come back as 'prior service' & get credit for their original time in service & rank, but with the break in service, and also their new identity properly tied in.

It might require them to be retrained, which would be an additional expense to their reintegration into the service, but since we have prior service rejoin all the time, in & of itself, that shouldn't be a factor against their returning to military service.

So in conclusion, medically speaking at least, one day, we'll have the medical technology that makes all this moot, but we're not there yet ... and that's really the only thing that makes this impractical at this time, at least while still actively serving. I'll leave the political and philosophical aspects to others to debate.

I'll add a couple of links to share the research I reviewed for my opinions in sharing this perspective for educational purposes (the second link covers much more about transgender reassignment):

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/30/sex-reassignment-surgery-transgender-journey

http://www.transgendercare.com/medical/resources/tmf_program/tmf_program_regimens.asp

I don't think that community would expect or want huge accomodations however I think there would be a couple issues to work out: 1. what gender fitness / combat position standards apply 2. Health coverage for hormone drugs and surgery complications

As far as facilities, it should be whatever gender they most strongly identity with. It would be impossible and silly for the military to fund building separate dorms/bathroom areas for them.

Since reading about this in the news I have contemplated how on earth this could work. I Have read a fair amount about Kristen beck and now think this is one individual that could (if given the chance) to squash two problems at once. As a former member of special operations she already has the knowledge and training to show that both women and transgendered individuals can quite easily function within combat arms.
Now when I try to think about the logistics of someone transitioning while in the service I come up with a multitude of problems. Most of which would only be overcome if all Service Members were treated the same and were required to perform at the same level. Additionally I know this would also require transitioning individuals to have a break from the service during the surgical portion of their process.
Over all I think this is something all services eventually need to go to; one set of standards for all SMs. But until that day comes the Armed Forces will not be able to properly handle this type of change.

It seems to me that nature provided for male and female. We're talking about special provisions for people who feel they don't fit one of those descriptions. NO.

Gender Dysphoria is a relatively well understood and documented medical condition within the medical community, there are many trans veterans out there who under the specter of the "remaining" DADT policy have served ably and competently. As leaders trans troops should be considered and understood with proper consideration towards their condition and actual gender, and a strong step should be taken against any potential discrimination that individual could face. It's a poorly understood outside aforementioned community and where there is not understanding, problems can be generated by less worldly troops. Other than working towards preventing conflicts before they can really happen. If the lifting of this restriction follows the DADT repeal pattern however these issues will be minimal at best, housing issues should be prepared for however.

As far as standards go, I have yet to meet a trans service member or a trans person in general who wants standards lowered for them. Those of them who want to serve or have served simply want to continue serving. There are many examples of trans individuals who have met our military's highest standards,like Navy SEAL Kristen Beck, or my good friend Sara, who's a former Force Recon Marine. The challenge and any accommodations made, won't have to be on the training and fighting side of things if our trans service members follow their examples by even half.

I have to say thanks LTC (Join to see), I had never heard the term intersex before!

We enforce the lawful orders (policies/rules etc) of the POTUS and the officers appointed over us. Some of our leaders are in politically sensitive positions and must address big issues on a very public stage and therefore we often get only bits & pieces of a conversation.

We are not a democratic organization, but if allowed to provide input then I'd assume our input would be collected by another survey.....