Transgender Service Members: Serving in Silence
I can't identify with anything that transgender individuals deal with, and integration still continues to be an issue with gay service members. I believe that what people choose to do with their bodies is their business, and they shouldn't be judged or banned for their actions. That being said, if there are physical issues that would preclude them from serving in any/all capacities that are required of military personnel, then that is a standard that needs to be adhered to.
An additional question for the discussion: Transgendered individuals require horomone medication for life. Should it be provided freely as other medications are for ailments, or should the member be required to pay for it, since they voluntarily undergo transition?
Edit: Updated language to be more neutral.
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).
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.
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 don't see this as a question of sexual orientation I see it as one of personal preference as to how a transgender individual seek to resolve their gender identity. Therapy, cross dressing, Hormones, or surgery are all possible approaches. I feel that there would currently need to be a limbo status on these individuals and how this would integrate into today's military is a good question. Until females are allowed into combat roles I don't see this happening.
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?
Medical Conditions That May Prevent You From Joining the Military
These standards generally apply to all branches of the military. None of them are automatic disqualifiers, just red flags.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/
8 Other Nations That Send Women to Combat
As the United States prepares to officially send women into combat, it is studying the experiences of foreign militaries. So how have they fared with women on the front lines?
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.
There's a huge difference between transgender and transsexual. Would transgender men be held to female standards with regard to uniform/physical standards? If so, why wouldn't a man want to claim he's a female? Instant perfect APFT score, he can grow his hair longer, whatever else. If only transsexual men would be held to female standards, would the Army pay for gender reassignment?
If no one else here has the guts to say it, I will- do we really want to go down this rabbit hole?
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.
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...
Report finds Army discriminated against transgender civilian employee
Tamara Lusardi, a transgender Army civilian who was restricted from using a female bathroom in the workplace and was called “sir” by colleagues, faced repeated instances of discrimination and humiliation at the hands of the Department of the Army, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel announced Thursday in a ruling that is being hailed as a landmark decision.
Wonder what people like George S. Patton and Winston Churchill would say today.
you'll be amazed at the results.
George S. Patton