Transgender Service Members: Serving in Silence

If it were a voluntary condition, the choice might be easier. The DNA imprint is a powerful piece of the transgender dilemma - that is, reconciling the internal clock with the outside body. Treatment should be a medical response following the law of the land including civil rights. It is not a religious issue unless someone wants to make it one. But, if we are all made in God's image, then those arguments are hollow.

Diabetics require medication for life. That is one of the reasons why diabetics are not allowed to join the military. (There are others, but that's one of them.)

The difference between a short (say three days) disruption in the medication supply for a gender reassigned person and a short (say three days) disruption in the medication supply for a diabetic is phenomenal.

I had a pet that was on hormone replacement therapy once. The theraputic dosage was roughly double the maintenance dosage for an average human being. The cost was roughly $100 per month.

I suspect that a gender reassigned person would be quite prepared to pay that amount themselves if they really wanted to serve and it was something which they knew that the military was not prepared to pay for.

If you don't believe me, ask any of the "closet diabetics" who are currently serving (and hoping to make it through long enough for a pension without being discovered).

COL Ted Mc - Agreed, Diabetics, Asthma disqualifiers I didn't understand until much later in life. Heat Stroke got many Marines thrown out of Officer Training also and eventually out of the Corps if shown to be a Internal Temperature problem which is not correctable

I am guessing we will eventually have openly serving Transgenders but if you read some of the arguments above the issue is very complicated. Medically, physically, mentally and many other points that have been made. Men born as men have a major physical advantage over females and competing for promotions would be a serious issue where 'naturally borne females' would be unfairly taxed with competing again men under their testing standards. That is just one small issue, If they are identifying as a woman only (still have equipment of male) do you expect women to be OK/feel safe bunking, showering with a physical Male who identifies as a women? Is it fair to ask them to do so?

I'd be interested in citations to support your view, that gender reassignment is medically necessary. While I do not know, my guess is that there are a VERY FEW cases of people born with both sets of genitals, who need a medical resolutions which is not in agreement with how the child was raised. I do not consider it rational to suggest that society must change and accept what often is a personal choice and not medically necessary simply because of rare cases where it is.

Second, your casting of question which began this is part of why you are getting the answers you are getting. I quote, "Do you think this is fair? Should transgendered individuals be accepted for military service? "

No it isn't fair, but neither LIFE nor the military are fair. Why should one group's definition of "fair" be acted on, and not another's? Second, you asked the question, "Should [they] be accepted ...", and yet you disagree with every response that isn't the one you want.

No one has to live in fear who can keep their mouths SHUT (and I am aware of how you will take that, but that's my point. People who have an concern that is greater than the defense of the nation DO NOT BELONG in the military.)

Yes indeed, people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but you skipped a word ... PURSUIT. They have the right to pursue happiness, not have it granted to them over the rights of others including their life and liberty which we are here to defend.

SGT Jinger Jarrett, I ask you this... why is it okay for the military to pay for breast augmentation to women who feel inadequate? Should I as a tax payer be forced to pay for their elective surgery? And it's not always an issue of breast cancer... there are women in the military who have had augmentation because they wanted it. Double standard??

Gender reassignment is not medically necessary, nor is it even indicated as a sound treatment for somatoform disorders related to behavioral issues. This was based on a journal/publication search within MedLine, PubMed and CINHAL. The statement is categorically false.

Being in the military is not a right! That is why we typically say “it has been a privilege to serve with you” when our mates move on. We volunteer and are accepted to serve in our military. I have never seen, anywhere, anything that remotely states, “Oh, and once you get here, if you don’t feel comfortable about yourself, we will fix it”. If we ask you to fight and you are injured, yeah… that should be covered. Moreover, I don’t feel that we should not be paying for breast augmentation either. I hate to take it to the toilet but could you imagine how many men would be lining up for elective penis enhancement because they felt inadequate?

I know it sounds like I am being an ass, but there is a job to do and the mission, in my opinion, gets clouded when we spend a lot of time worrying about issues like this. The military is not a fit for everyone, if you want to be here, then there should be some minimum criteria you should meet to do so. Your orientation/gender does not play into this equation.

I agree, orientation and gender do not play into the equation. That is why the military should stop discriminating against people because of it. Being in the military is not a right, but being yourself without fearing harassment or discrimination is a right, and is one that should be protected for everyone in the military.

I guarantee you that no man, especially one in the military, would ever volunteer to go through the harassment, emotions, depression, and all the other difficulties that transgender women face just to do fewer push-ups. Also, you may not realize this, but there are a lot of female-to-male transgender service members. In your logic, what is their excuse? What woman would voluntarily subject herself to a tougher PT test? Yes, as you (inaccurately) say, a transgender WOMAN could still like "getting busy" with another female. So what? Now that DADT is gone, there are open lesbians living in the same berthings and using the same showers as other females.

Being transgender is NOT a preference. It is an affliction, a medical condition. It sucks. Yet they can not change who they are. It is nothing like any of the fetishes you seem to know so much about. The question we must ask is:

Why are we still separating high-performing individuals from the military for a treatable, genuine medical condition that is completely manageable as is shown by 18 other countries?

LTJG (Join to see) certainly people with any kind of mental or emotional stress should not suffer. I never said that transgendered people should suffer. However while not all transgendered suffer from GID the solution for GID is whatever will alleviate suffering and restore functionality; this solution often, but not always, consists of undergoing a gender transition. In part of that transition aligning the gender with the self practices such as cross dressing are employed. This is were the gray area comes in. This is where the proverbial cat is out of the bag. Issues arise like a transgender female wanting to be male and not wanting to go the route of sex reassignment surgery and happy with hormone replacement therapy. Where does he/she fall in terms of combat arms. Also while there is strong evidence that there are clearly physiological differences if a transgender soldier were wanting sex reassignment surgery who is paying for these procedures. I just don't see how the transgendered segment of the population would be able to thrive in the military as it is currently without implementing some quasi double standards. Presently I feel that the until military finally gives females the green light to serve in combat arms the issue of transgender service members needs to be tabled until then. I only say this as many of the grey areas would take care of themselves in re-guards to the roles available. On the point of choice there are choices in terms in how an individual elects treatment. I fully believe all have the right to serve our great nation reluctantly however not all can do this in the military. Transgender is not alone in this as in the attached link there is an extensive list of health related issues that would prevent one from serving.

Certainly I agree. Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, New Zealand and Norway allow women in some or all combat roles and they just also happen to allow transgender individuals to serve. However remember that the US Military is like a rather large ship and that makes for very wide and slow turns that also generates a large wake. I think once the role of females gets sorted out then and only then will transgender be considered. However on the list of medical conditions above the condition of hermaphroditism is listed so I feel this will need to be reconsidered as well.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/

The debate CPT Michael Barden (and I had to read up on this) over mental health and genetic issues would be inevitable as one delineates between transgender and transexual. Transexual is a deeper form of transgender where the urge to change sex is more acted upon and where - according to the sources I read - is deeper rooted both mentally and physically. It would be tough at best to classify it as a disorder - similar in someways to people trying to claim homosexuality is a disorder.

I made similar comments about the mental stability of trans gendered people. We have a very weak system in place to measure the mental stability of soldiers as it is and I believe we need much more stringent examination in that area before soldiers enlist or commission. I do not believe that there are many mentally stable transgendered people who could handle the rigors of service for very long. I also do not feel that the tax payer should be forced to pay for hormones, surgeries or therapy for any soldiers who may be or become transgendered. Imagine how many would enlist just to get the free health care that we offer! I don't think these people have a place in the military.

CPT Michael Barden I agree that the PT standard is the least of our worries, but it was an easy example to put forth.

Do they have the physical strength to handle their job?
Do they have the emotional ability to handle their job?
Will they serve and protect honorably and pay the ultimate price if necessary?

The list goes on, that was just an example being used to demonstrate a standard that is not the same for everyone and is known enough for anyone reading the point to relate.

Thanks for taking the time to point out that it is one of the less important standards in this debate however.

Rusty there are more than two sides if you consider the prospects of hypercubes and seven dimensions as in per particle physics. There is a great difference between scoffing at logic that you do not agree with. Take the Particle Physicists and the deep fissures between scientists. And there are so many theories as to why and we have hardly scratched the surface of most scientific fields.

Cpl Kirk Sain,
whose budget? The soldiers (or whatever branch specific term you identify with...)
I have no problem with anyone serving, as long as it doesn't give special privilege. Letting them serve is not the same as buying them néw body parts...

My God, why does everyone add so much shit to these topics.

Jason, Gender Reassignment is a PERSONAL choice. A member getting new body parts due to a combat related injury is not. See the difference? Are you willing to cut the budget of those that require prosthetics to someone who CHOOSES an ELECTIVE surgery with LIFETIME hormone therapy? "Letting" them serve is accepting responsibility for the added medical costs.

No, pal, it is not. Allowing them to serve, means allowing them to serve.
if they hit an ied, and their arm disappears - fine. We can cover that. If it slices up their fabricated penis, we can cover that too, since we would be covering the same thing if it happened to you. (I'm assuming you have a penis)
What it is not, is saying, "welcome to the Navy, here are your boobs..." if they want them, they can pay for that on their own...

...just as a woman now would pay for that SAME ELECTIVE SURGERY as the transgendered person. Hormones are a part of that ELECTIVE process.

The amazing thing - if a biological man does not take estrogen, and a biological woman does not take testosterone, THEY WILL NOT DIE! So, if they are not able to take them, for whatever reason, it is not the end of the world...

Amazing how that works. Funny, we had a guy getting testosterone on my first deployment, because he had a little attention "getting to attention".. At this time, we were under a General order to abstain from anything involving that rigid posture.

Riddle me this, Batman - why did the Army care if he could get it up or not, when they themselves said he can't use it anyway? Now if he can be given T tgen, how can you argue against anyone else getting ANY legal drug?

...that's what I thought...

the question was never who pays for the surgery the question was should transgenders be allowed to serve. i say why not. they should be judged by their ability to do the job just like the rest of us

too Late - the dream that we LIVED in was just that - a dream...Now that we've woken up this is how the rest of the story goes...

You know 1LT Tanner Dieppa you would be surprise how many people join the military to gain satisfaction of finally belonging to something that will accept them for who they are, and will not judge them on who they are. It is shame the military will not allow people ADD and ADHD in anymore. Really in they ranks filled with these people before these issue were known, many of them earned the nickname of Yoyo, for going up down the ladder of the ranks. The military is missing out on quite a few good people that would be good soldiers. When I joined it still wasn't even known of, and of most cases, they are finding out more and more are truly Asperger's cases, again something not to widely known of when I joined. I got double whammy, in all three cases, there are people I have seen in life with these condition who could function in the military. No differently than anyone else, who has the various waivers and profiles for whatever reasons. Yes Cpr Brett Wagner it went down hill when the military went from fighting force to social experiment with politicians steering the ship who continue to turn deaf ear to what the Chief of Staffs continue to tell them. I mean why continue to have the Joint Chiefs of Staff if you are going to only fire their asses when they tell you the damn truth of the situation, or they retire after they throw you under the bus, like Tommy Franks did at the end of the Gulf War, due to the the slow down when he called for halt during the sand storm so supplies could reach front line units. Or having a the military in two theaters of operations, all the while sending new equipment to both on the regular basis, while not increasing spending on replacement equipment. Worse not increase the true size of the military overall, just the number of deployable units while cutting the overall strength of the military. Then President and his Cabinet can't understand why their Foreign Policy with countries such as Iran and North Korea go no where, well because they both know we are over extended already, and any threat we give is empty. Same right now with all threats we aim toward Mr. Putin and European Union and NATO threat are even more empty towards him. The sad thing it our own fault that there still so much distrust between Russia and the West. Not that it hasn't been earn by the Mr. Putin by his antics, but one would of thought after the fall of the Soviet Union that things would of been different in the world. Sadly the people who have been elected to office the last 25 years seemed to believe that things have been different, no matter what the warning signs and alarms have said.

Wonder what people like George S. Patton and Winston Churchill would say today.

Churchill would say...I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.” Oh WTF is trans...WHAT?

If you tell people where to go, but not how to get there,
you'll be amazed at the results.

George S. Patton