Posted on Oct 20, 2017
In an issue of conflicting rights, where do you draw the line?
4.51K
33
30
4
4
0
I recently got into it with a Lieutenant on here (go figure) because he insisted that forcing him to call a transgender individual by their correct name was a violation of his rights. I also read the 'Ask A Manager' blog, where there was a letter one time from a manager who wanted to know how to get his staff to stop calling the Indian co-worker by a westernized version of her name, and call her by her correct name. They had excuses as to why they didn't. I suspect they were calling Parvati "Polly" and she didn't like it, but was too intimidated to stand up for herself...given the pushback.
I always thought the person had the right to their own identity. If a person tells you what their name is, THAT IS THEIR NAME. To call them anything other than what they've asked, why would you do such a thing? What makes your "free speech" rights greater than their right to their own identity?
The lieutenant I got into it with asserted that if he 'felt' like it, he could call me Francis. Yeah, he could, but he'd be a dick for doing it. Plus, as two cisgender males, the trans issue doesn't even come up between the two of us, so if we were working in the same place I could complain to a higher commander, so that was just a b.s. excuse, and thinly disguised bigotry.
You can think of a transgender person as whatever gender you like, but you call them (and anyone else) by the name they ask to be called by. Anything else makes you an entitled snowflake. Why would you do such a thing??
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Based on the comments of someone I respect, let me qualify this by saying that if this is a military situation, and the individual is transgender, we're talking about a situation where the gender marker in DEERS has been changed, and the person's name has been legally changed, so reads on the ID card as their new name. We're not talking about someone deciding to be funny and wanting to be called Domingus the Attack Helicopter here...]
I always thought the person had the right to their own identity. If a person tells you what their name is, THAT IS THEIR NAME. To call them anything other than what they've asked, why would you do such a thing? What makes your "free speech" rights greater than their right to their own identity?
The lieutenant I got into it with asserted that if he 'felt' like it, he could call me Francis. Yeah, he could, but he'd be a dick for doing it. Plus, as two cisgender males, the trans issue doesn't even come up between the two of us, so if we were working in the same place I could complain to a higher commander, so that was just a b.s. excuse, and thinly disguised bigotry.
You can think of a transgender person as whatever gender you like, but you call them (and anyone else) by the name they ask to be called by. Anything else makes you an entitled snowflake. Why would you do such a thing??
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Based on the comments of someone I respect, let me qualify this by saying that if this is a military situation, and the individual is transgender, we're talking about a situation where the gender marker in DEERS has been changed, and the person's name has been legally changed, so reads on the ID card as their new name. We're not talking about someone deciding to be funny and wanting to be called Domingus the Attack Helicopter here...]
Posted in these groups: 
Transgender
Equal Opportunity (EO)
Transgender Equal Opportunity (EO)
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 12
8
8
0
CW3 (Join to see) "You can think of a transgender person as whatever gender you like, but you call them (and anyone else) by the name they ask to be called by. Anything else makes you an entitled snowflake. Why would you do such a thing??"
All true... on the non military side of the world.. As this is supposed to be primarily a military themed site , I'll respond form that point of view>>
And from the military side (dare I say Governmental employee side meaning anyone that has an GOV issued ID card)
You address the person in front of you by the name on their ID card Period.. The only exception I see as valid to that is a common use contraction that the SM casually requests to be used in unofficial conversations and communications (not directs or orders, me to but asks)
SO if CSM Bobivilliementos asks me to call him bob in personal conversations, so be it.. Email and non one on one personal conversations its still going to be Bobivilliementos.
Same with LT Franks, who now wishes to be called LT Cindy... In privet conversations talking about the upcoming movement order, I would be willing to address him as LT Cindy.. However in the staff meeting , the OPORD brief, or working groups, its going to be LT Franks until the gender Marker is changed officially and the Name is changed legally, with a new ID card issued in the new name.
Dont want to play by the rules? Get the rules changed or find employment where the company supports you using any fictitious name you want to call yourself.. Like it or not, in the military, if the name is different then what is on the ID card .. you have no leg to stand on with expecting nor demanding someone call you by your new fictitious name.
All true... on the non military side of the world.. As this is supposed to be primarily a military themed site , I'll respond form that point of view>>
And from the military side (dare I say Governmental employee side meaning anyone that has an GOV issued ID card)
You address the person in front of you by the name on their ID card Period.. The only exception I see as valid to that is a common use contraction that the SM casually requests to be used in unofficial conversations and communications (not directs or orders, me to but asks)
SO if CSM Bobivilliementos asks me to call him bob in personal conversations, so be it.. Email and non one on one personal conversations its still going to be Bobivilliementos.
Same with LT Franks, who now wishes to be called LT Cindy... In privet conversations talking about the upcoming movement order, I would be willing to address him as LT Cindy.. However in the staff meeting , the OPORD brief, or working groups, its going to be LT Franks until the gender Marker is changed officially and the Name is changed legally, with a new ID card issued in the new name.
Dont want to play by the rules? Get the rules changed or find employment where the company supports you using any fictitious name you want to call yourself.. Like it or not, in the military, if the name is different then what is on the ID card .. you have no leg to stand on with expecting nor demanding someone call you by your new fictitious name.
(5)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
SGM Marquez, the face to face training provided by the Air Force (slides available on our portal) provide for one to be addressed by one’s preferred name & pronoun. Many people seem to think it is easy to change one’s name. That is not the case, especially when stationed overseas or somewhere not the same as one’s legal residence. It often requires multiple appearances in person in the courts.
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
MSgt (Join to see)
So of course I was speaking from a experience and knowledge of United States Army as I wasn't in the Air Force and I don’t know what was briefed there.
Second I would need to see if what you’re referencing was guidance or regulation.
I can see where they may have put out guidance which states you can use the requested pronoun (perhaps even the word “should”) I doubt sincerely the Air Force made it policy and regulation that you MUST use the requested pronoun or name.
As to the difficulty in changing your legal name, I’d guess it is somewhat by design.. And specifically not my problem, not your problem if it was easy people would do it too often for less good reasons. In other words it’s supposed to be difficult, that difficulty has nothing to do with whether not it’s proper to use a pronoun or a name that isn’t legally yours.
While I have no personal experience of how hard it is to do while overseas. The three United States Army soldiers I personally counseled through the process (don’t tell my wife I used the word counseled in reference to helping her) it was pretty easy, two court appearances one to make the request a second to present evidence that you completed the required tasks, a smack have a gavel and your name was changed.
Each court proceeding in front of the judge took about 15 minutes they perhaps waited in line several hours before they got there 15 minutes in front of the judge.
Perhaps that’s the state by state procedure and in California where my experience was, it was just easier than other states I can’t speak to that either
So of course I was speaking from a experience and knowledge of United States Army as I wasn't in the Air Force and I don’t know what was briefed there.
Second I would need to see if what you’re referencing was guidance or regulation.
I can see where they may have put out guidance which states you can use the requested pronoun (perhaps even the word “should”) I doubt sincerely the Air Force made it policy and regulation that you MUST use the requested pronoun or name.
As to the difficulty in changing your legal name, I’d guess it is somewhat by design.. And specifically not my problem, not your problem if it was easy people would do it too often for less good reasons. In other words it’s supposed to be difficult, that difficulty has nothing to do with whether not it’s proper to use a pronoun or a name that isn’t legally yours.
While I have no personal experience of how hard it is to do while overseas. The three United States Army soldiers I personally counseled through the process (don’t tell my wife I used the word counseled in reference to helping her) it was pretty easy, two court appearances one to make the request a second to present evidence that you completed the required tasks, a smack have a gavel and your name was changed.
Each court proceeding in front of the judge took about 15 minutes they perhaps waited in line several hours before they got there 15 minutes in front of the judge.
Perhaps that’s the state by state procedure and in California where my experience was, it was just easier than other states I can’t speak to that either
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
SGM Erik Marquez - You generalized to the entire military: "Like it or not, in the military, if the name is different then what is on the ID card .. you have no leg to stand on with expecting nor demanding someone call you by your new fictitious name." I was simply pointing out that USAF members so indeed have a leg to stand on when they request to be called something other than what their ID says. Yes, of course, it was guidance, not a regulation. And yes, it was should, not must. However, "dignity & respect" have been the phase repeated over & over on this topic. I do not think it is at all respectful to refuse to use somebody's preferred name or pronoun.
And yes, California is one of the easier states to change one's name & gender marker. Many service members are legal residence of states that have no income tax & tend to be very red (Texas, Florida, Alaska, South Dakota, etc.). Judges may not be so warm to transgender individuals. And still, there is the whole not be stationed near one's legal residence issue.
And yes, California is one of the easier states to change one's name & gender marker. Many service members are legal residence of states that have no income tax & tend to be very red (Texas, Florida, Alaska, South Dakota, etc.). Judges may not be so warm to transgender individuals. And still, there is the whole not be stationed near one's legal residence issue.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
That's an easy answer. A RIGHT cannot place an obligation on someone else in order for that right to be exercised. I can run my mouth but I cannot force you to listen. I can seek medical care, but I cannot force you to provide it, nor can I force you to pay for it. By that same token, one RIGHT cannot negate another. I cannot use my right to be armed, to deprive of your RIGHT to life, liberty or property.
What you are describing are not issues of RIGHTS but of legal and civic obligations/conventions. Since the uniformed services have seen fit to deny reason and science in order to feed into the mental (and most likely chemical) deficiencies of a small number of individuals, the services can mandate that people encourage this self destructive and abhorrent behavior by comlying with their delusions. By agreeing to the service, you agree to the conditions of that service. Therefore, if the service wishes to encourage depravity in their ranks, then legally one is required to comply. Otherwise, that individual must seek employment elsewhere.
What you are describing are not issues of RIGHTS but of legal and civic obligations/conventions. Since the uniformed services have seen fit to deny reason and science in order to feed into the mental (and most likely chemical) deficiencies of a small number of individuals, the services can mandate that people encourage this self destructive and abhorrent behavior by comlying with their delusions. By agreeing to the service, you agree to the conditions of that service. Therefore, if the service wishes to encourage depravity in their ranks, then legally one is required to comply. Otherwise, that individual must seek employment elsewhere.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Someone on RP had a different opinion than you? Please say it ain't so. Happens to me often. I wouldn't sweat it though. Just do what you think is right and fair. If all else fails revert to The Golden Rule. That's a novel approach but often works. I try to avoid labels and respect a reasonable request though IRT the topic. Naming conventions i.e. DEERS and official comms are a different matter. Even free speech has limits and many things we might want to call someone could fall in category of "fighting words" and are not protected. Addressing someone in a taunting and disrespectful manner is not good in any environment. In the civilian workplace it may be covered in the rules surrounding a Non-Hostile Workplace. That person should utilize the COC or HR rep for dispute resolution, and follow up until it is resolved. As to the exchange here on RP, many here like to intentionally show out with clickbait and then go ugly from there when we respond. You can often tell when the post is crying out for someone to respond, and the hateful dialogue is usually provided predictably. Just try to be patient and professional and it will eventually become a non-issue. Plan B: just ignore it and move on - easier said than done.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CW3 (Join to see)
Very interesting conundrum that one may put themselves in. When would it be justified to violate the rights of others so you can enjoy your rights? We have seen lately those who strongly want to protect free speech but then in turn protest and try to prevent others of different opinion in expressing theirs. Or the blocking of facilities or places of business to protest a curtain cause or event and preventing workers from entering those business/facilities to earn their living. So is it justified in this case because you need to get your message out? That someones rights must be violated for the good of all and to bring awareness to your cause? That in turn brings in to question for who exactly does it benefit, you because that's what you believe or everyone in general? Yes, quite a conundrum!
Very interesting conundrum that one may put themselves in. When would it be justified to violate the rights of others so you can enjoy your rights? We have seen lately those who strongly want to protect free speech but then in turn protest and try to prevent others of different opinion in expressing theirs. Or the blocking of facilities or places of business to protest a curtain cause or event and preventing workers from entering those business/facilities to earn their living. So is it justified in this case because you need to get your message out? That someones rights must be violated for the good of all and to bring awareness to your cause? That in turn brings in to question for who exactly does it benefit, you because that's what you believe or everyone in general? Yes, quite a conundrum!
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
For the general question, MSgt (Join to see) you're absolutely right, it is a conundrum. The specific instance, however, is someone insisting they have the right to call someone by a name not their own.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
CW3 (Join to see) -
Personally in my opinion what ever name you choose is how I will address you. It's really none of my business whether you want to be called Sam or Samantha. But in a military setting as in an award ceremony I may address a person as to what is printed on the award.
Personally in my opinion what ever name you choose is how I will address you. It's really none of my business whether you want to be called Sam or Samantha. But in a military setting as in an award ceremony I may address a person as to what is printed on the award.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
There are countless discussions on the hierarchy of rights and which one take precedence when, so I won't get into that piece. What I am reading in your post is two individuals with differing opinions exercising their freedom of speech.
The LT is correct, they have the right to call them whatever they want (assuming no UCMJ or TOS issues are in play). However, just because they have the right to do something does not mean that it is socially acceptable. It is generally rude to address someone in a way contrary to how they introduce themselves. Sure they have the right to do so, but that doesn't make it right to do it.
On this site, things get a little blurred because there are currently serving folks here that are subject to the UCMJ. That changes the dynamic a little, but not completely. SM to SM interactions are based on rank and clearly articulated in regulations. There is no confusion about what a SM should call another SM (unless you get outside of your own branch). If I had rank, I should call you Sir or Chief Walker. Since I don't (despite the SGT stripes next to my name) I would call you what you introduced yourself to me as. To do otherwise is rude despite me having the right to do so.
In the example you posted, I don't see a conflict of rights but I do see a conflict regarding societal norms and manners. The two are very different. I think we tend to forget that sometimes. We all have rights, but we also live in a society with established norms on manners. Violating those norms can cause some negative consequences even if it does not constitute a violation of rights.
The LT is correct, they have the right to call them whatever they want (assuming no UCMJ or TOS issues are in play). However, just because they have the right to do something does not mean that it is socially acceptable. It is generally rude to address someone in a way contrary to how they introduce themselves. Sure they have the right to do so, but that doesn't make it right to do it.
On this site, things get a little blurred because there are currently serving folks here that are subject to the UCMJ. That changes the dynamic a little, but not completely. SM to SM interactions are based on rank and clearly articulated in regulations. There is no confusion about what a SM should call another SM (unless you get outside of your own branch). If I had rank, I should call you Sir or Chief Walker. Since I don't (despite the SGT stripes next to my name) I would call you what you introduced yourself to me as. To do otherwise is rude despite me having the right to do so.
In the example you posted, I don't see a conflict of rights but I do see a conflict regarding societal norms and manners. The two are very different. I think we tend to forget that sometimes. We all have rights, but we also live in a society with established norms on manners. Violating those norms can cause some negative consequences even if it does not constitute a violation of rights.
(1)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
Very well stated, and cuts right to the heart of the matter.
As I have stated in other contexts, it's not a violation of other's rights for me to be a dick. Though it is a dick move. ;-)
Also, I am not required to substitute someone else's assessment of right behavior for my assessment of right behavior. (Which is where I find the rub usually resides)
As I have stated in other contexts, it's not a violation of other's rights for me to be a dick. Though it is a dick move. ;-)
Also, I am not required to substitute someone else's assessment of right behavior for my assessment of right behavior. (Which is where I find the rub usually resides)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think that third parties (not the transgender individual or the one addressing them) that have time to make this an issue that they want to get wrapped around the axle on need to be appointed for more additional duties.
Clearly they have too much time on their hands.
Having said that, the military has published policies and conducted training in this regard, so an individual that chooses to not acknowledge an identity or name change runs the risk of being afoul of AR600-20 and get called on the carpet.
I'd suggest finding a different free speech hill to die on.
Clearly they have too much time on their hands.
Having said that, the military has published policies and conducted training in this regard, so an individual that chooses to not acknowledge an identity or name change runs the risk of being afoul of AR600-20 and get called on the carpet.
I'd suggest finding a different free speech hill to die on.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Ok, my $0.02- 1, What fricking rights? If in the Military YOU will call some by whatever their name tag says, unless you have been around each other for a long time, or the lower rank is comfortable with you using their 1st name. If it's Jones, then it's PFC Jones, doesn't matter what the damn gender is, that regulations. You do nor refer to them as PFC Francis/Frank/Francico Jones!. Their 1st name is only necessary if you have more than 1 Jones in the unit, or you are conducting manifest call/ reading orders. So the LT, is wrong (imagine that). If folks would kindly remember that they have abridged rights under UCMJ maybe the Armed Forces could spent more time being prepared for the MISIION than whining like a bunch of civilian SNOWFLAKES!
f
f
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Usually even with the knowledge of a persons name I'll still ask what they prefer to be called and that is what I'll use. Often there is even a nickname and many people prefer that to a formal name. ie: My formal name is Lawrence but I prefer Larry although i'll answer to either. Why should it be an issue to address any person by the name they prefer to use ? For Anyone to pick a nickname that may be offensive to the other person just isn't proper anywhere and sure won't win You a friendship with that person or even their respect.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
