Transgender Service Members: Serving in Silence

The folks who seem to object most are either retirees or folks who for whatever reason never served. I call the latter crowd John Waynes. They talk a good talk and come across as gung ho but somehow managed to sit it out when their nation needed them. Virginia former Gov George Allen is an example of a John Wayne. Dont know what his views are on LGBT soldiers etc.
Still what others find irksome is any type of DoD wide recognition. Already we have various ethnic identifier weeklong celebrations. I'm cool with those. This all volunteer force depends heavily on Puerto Ricans and Chicanos. They have much to be proud of esp in terms of rebuilding the force after the post Viet Nam war hollow army. So far we have no Estonian American week or Slavic American week. And its likely since those have assimilated and do not customarily assert any "apartness" or have a historical grievance against how they or their ancestors were treated we won't see one soon. Asian Pacific week is a reality. They do a great deal. They've achieved much from the Filipino physician serving as a medic in our army to the 6 yr old Vietnamese refugee who grew up to command 1st Cav Div.
The bone in the craw of many will be parades with uniformed personnel marching not beneath old glory but beneath the San Francisco Rainbow parade. We cannot simultaneously demand that everyone be treated the same yet institutionalize practices which reinforce/highlight/glorify differences. What next LGBT NCO of the quarter? Of the year?

Look at it from this perspective. I have several friends that are gay ..hell one is a Drill SGT...and three are SF,, think of the courage to get up everyday and face a world that would probably turn on you in a heart beat if you didn't believe like they did,.. or going to a strip club with your team to stay normal.. meanwhile inside the fear is growing by the minute that your "secrete" will be discovered.. I honestly believe that as long as you can do your job and not interfere with me doing mine.. I don't who you love, I got your back,,you get mine, if you can't do that because of some prejudice, then move on... I know that we all know who is straight and who isn't in our team.. but they are still our brothers and sisters..

Hey SFC (Join to see) you should give leadership pointers to SSG (Join to see) that leader, I use that term loosely, needs a Cranial Rectotomy. Yours is the best mindset to have as a leader, never sell anyone short on their capabilities

Really? Is that statement called for here? I know better to not even have answered you...But being have been a top NCO, I feel I must say something. Please rethink what you wrote and re-ask yourself "why" the heck did I post this?" It just isn't a good time nor place to have had that type of question posed. Can you understand? It just doesn't go with the subject matter and it is some what disturbing of the second part of your question ....Move on.

SSG (Join to see) I don't care how many there are. I just care that they can shoot at the enemy. SFC Scott Parkhurst thanks for the assist.

OK, fair enough....Just don't / didn't understand your question OR why the "which sexual orientation's are there and which ones can you name?"...Not important. That's all.

Actually, SFC William Mask, I do care a whole lot about the Army and the military as a whole. And you are absolutely right. I think everyone should uphold the Army standard in every aspect, no excuses. Everyone should wear the Army ACU's per AR 670-1. I totally over-looked your angle of the situation. Thanks. But I also think that if a person is gay, let them be gay on their own time. When they are on the clock, hey will uphold the standard. If they can't uphold the standard and want to bitch about it claiming some kind of discrimination bullshit, then they should leave.

I believe you need to read up on genetics before making a case on biology. Dr. Eric Vilain, of medical genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, made this statement in a conclusion for an article outlining why a federal marriage amendment limiting marriage to one male and one female was wrongheaded:

"Sex should be easily definable, but it's not. Our gender identity -- our profound sense of being male or female -- is independent from our anatomy. A constitutional amendment authorizing marriages only between men and women would not only discriminate against millions of Americans who do not fit easily in the mold of each category, but would simply be flawed and contrary to basic biological realities."

I'd highly recommend reading at least the rest of that article before making the case that demands conformance with a rigid sex and gender binary.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/19/opinion/oe-vilain19

Thank you PO1 Autumn Sandeen. Biological sex is a thing that isn't neatly answered by the presence of an X or Y chromosome, or a neat all-encompassing standard. In a culture dominated by societal roles of men vs women, this is a shocking concept. The roots of a clearly-defined sex may be ingrained in the laws of our culture, but certainly not in nature or biology.

Very well said!

Oh no they didn't...in 1988 the sexes were still in separate boot camps. So i can see where some of the cultural shock comes from, but it doesn't give any excuse for some of the bs they have been posting.