Posted on Oct 22, 2014
Transgender Service Members: Serving in Silence
145K
2.49K
1.18K
77
53
24
Despite the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010', transgender people are still banned from serving in the military. To this day, if it is discovered that any service man or woman identifies as a transgender, he or she would be separated from serving. Do you think this is fair? Should transgendered individuals be accepted for military service?
Policy
Transgender
LGBTQ+
Command Post
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 249
1
1
0
SSgt Thomas L.
On the contrary, the military is the best social experiment. Social change is dictated from the top down. Think about racial integration... no large organization had integration in 1948. Truman's Executive Order 9981 made segregation in the military a thing of the past almost overnight... almost two decades before it would become the standard in the rest of the country.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Thomas L.
MSG Ramon Hidalgo-Acosta, you fail to see the similarities? You don't think that enacting racial integration by executive order, bypassing strong popular opinion (Do you REALLY think integration would have passed a vote in 1948? Do you know how many lynchings took place that year?) and doing it before any other large organization had done it... was an experiment? One could make the exact same argument you make, in your own words, that gays and transgender people "proved themselves to be no less worthy than those who advocate a segregated Army". You either forget or don't know that there were "genetic" arguments against African Americans serving in important positions. They were not considered intelligent enough to be trusted with command, or indeed with any autonomy at all. By every definition, since African Americans had never been given such positions, Executive Order 9981 was a social experiment.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
i honestly don't see what the issue is. why should they get kicked out? atleast they are willing to serve our country like everyone else. if they dont let transgenders in the military are they going to stop letting in people of all races or religions? there is not that much difference. as long as everyone acts professional there should be no issue.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is Rally Point, with that reminder in hand I try to frame my contribution to the discussion with "How does it support completing the mission?".
In other words, "Would the downfalls of x outweigh the benefits of x?"
As a sidebar I would bring other sexual eccentricities to the discussion for thought:
* Would the downfalls of a masochist outweigh the benefits of a masochist?
Probably, they might excel in training, and counter interrogation.
* Would the downfalls of a sadist outweigh the benefits of a sadist?
Probably not, we still feel the effects of political fallout from "Enhanced interrogation tactics" in Guantanamo bay.
So with this litmus test, "Would transgender people in the military benefit the completion of the mission?"
WebMD defines gender-dysphoria as:
"People who have gender dysphoria feel strongly that they are not the gender they physically appear to be."
That said, it could be called a mental disorder, or the mirror image of a physical disorder. The point is that there's something out of sync between the individual's body and their perception of it.
That alone would generally exclude someone from the military, because the military doesn't enlist people that need something "fixed" i. g. a friend of mine has to get a deviated septum repaired before he was allowed to enlist.
I say generally, because soldiers (as much as we strive for uniformity) at the day are still individuals. Yes, there are individuals that have specific skill sets that have value that outweighs abnormality.
However, recruiters don't sign up troops based on individual skill-set, so policy has to be based on generalization. This isn't a job down at Wal-Mart, the enemy doesn't make allowances for differences, they exploit them.
Even if an individual has has gender reassignment surgery there is still lifelong hormone therapy to consider... the added expense, a item in the supply chain that specifically supports one individual?
In other words, "Would the downfalls of x outweigh the benefits of x?"
As a sidebar I would bring other sexual eccentricities to the discussion for thought:
* Would the downfalls of a masochist outweigh the benefits of a masochist?
Probably, they might excel in training, and counter interrogation.
* Would the downfalls of a sadist outweigh the benefits of a sadist?
Probably not, we still feel the effects of political fallout from "Enhanced interrogation tactics" in Guantanamo bay.
So with this litmus test, "Would transgender people in the military benefit the completion of the mission?"
WebMD defines gender-dysphoria as:
"People who have gender dysphoria feel strongly that they are not the gender they physically appear to be."
That said, it could be called a mental disorder, or the mirror image of a physical disorder. The point is that there's something out of sync between the individual's body and their perception of it.
That alone would generally exclude someone from the military, because the military doesn't enlist people that need something "fixed" i. g. a friend of mine has to get a deviated septum repaired before he was allowed to enlist.
I say generally, because soldiers (as much as we strive for uniformity) at the day are still individuals. Yes, there are individuals that have specific skill sets that have value that outweighs abnormality.
However, recruiters don't sign up troops based on individual skill-set, so policy has to be based on generalization. This isn't a job down at Wal-Mart, the enemy doesn't make allowances for differences, they exploit them.
Even if an individual has has gender reassignment surgery there is still lifelong hormone therapy to consider... the added expense, a item in the supply chain that specifically supports one individual?
(1)
(0)
SPC David Hannaman
I served with good soldiers who happened to be homosexual, and I served with some ate-up soldiers who were homosexual.
The discussion isn't about sexual preference, it's about a people who feel that "They are not the gender that they appear to be".
Completely different ballgame.
The discussion isn't about sexual preference, it's about a people who feel that "They are not the gender that they appear to be".
Completely different ballgame.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm kind of amazed at the way that some people to separate their perception of morality from other people's right to life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. You may be morally opposed to the way someone lives their life but that doesn't give you the right to dictate how they live. The only person obligated to live according to my perception of right and wrong is me. Even my wife has a much different perception of right and wrong than my own and we get along great because we don't force our beliefs on each other. I'm a big proponent of live and let live.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Discipline and order are essential to serving in the military. If transgender causes a disruption in the unity and fighting ability of a unit then having transgender soldiers may imperil the effectiveness and safety of the unit. Why is it that so many soldiers forget that they are sworn in to protect our constitution and country, not to test the constitution and existing laws.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I wonder how long it will be before folks will want VA hospitals to do their gender reassignment procedures?
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
Military service isn't about self. So whatever someone self-identifies as shouldn't matter at all. If you are gay, straight, transgender or not then it shouldn't matter. Ultimately- if you care enough to find out about somebody else, or care enough to tell everyone then your interests probably aren't in the service, and perhaps more about drawing attention to yourself. If you insist on expensive medical treatments so that you can feel more like an opposite gender- your probably still thinking about yourself. Really, if you want to serve in the military, then you should want to use all of your body's assets, including physical strength, empathy, endurance, and whatever other qualities you may have to best support the military service and your specific MOS. Privately, nobody cares what you identify as, because ultimately the military is not about private life.
*edit: If the military moves to eliminate transgender restrictions- it might also be useful to eliminate all gender distinctions- including uniforms, hair styles, etcetera. For example, if men were allowed to receive medical treatment and benefits for childbirth then the number of males who would request it would increase by 0.
*edit: If the military moves to eliminate transgender restrictions- it might also be useful to eliminate all gender distinctions- including uniforms, hair styles, etcetera. For example, if men were allowed to receive medical treatment and benefits for childbirth then the number of males who would request it would increase by 0.
(1)
(0)
2ndLt (Join to see)
Exactly. If someone is bigoted towards or uncomfortable with someone of the opposite gender, a different sexual orientation, or status as a transgender, then it's *that* person's problem, not the person who's different. What matters is how the person who cuts against the grain conducts themselves. As far as I care (and I know many others will corroborate my statement), you can do whatever you want in your private life so long as you're not hurting anyone. On the job I want you focused and not drawing attention to yourself. A post on Reddit's military forum put it best, if somewhat crudely. "There's nothing wrong with being gay. There is something wrong with being a faggot."
(2)
(0)
Maj Scott Kiger, M.A.S.
Agreed! Well said, we had gays in the Military for years before "don't ask don't tell", Most were left alone and served admirably. When don't ask don't tell was rescinded it actually caused problems originally because more Flamboyant behavior became the norm and thereby caused attention to individuals who quite frankly were not used to it and not very good at deflecting it even when their overt actions were causing the 'new attention'. It seems to have balanced out and now Gays can serve again with distinction and generally in my opinion were treated the same as all others. Meaning as a Marine no matter what their sexual orientation was.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
AR 40-501 Standards of Medical Fitness
2-14 Genetalia
a. Female Genetalia
(5) History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex (P64.5), hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis (752.7), or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these conditions does not meet the standard.
2-14 Genetalia
b. Male Genetalia
(8) Current hydrocele (603.0), if large or symptomatic, does not meet the standard. Left varicocele (456.4), if symptomatic, or associated with testicular atrophy, or vericocele larger than the testis does not meet the standard. Any right varicocele (456.4) does not meet the standard.
d. History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia, such as a change of sex (P64.5), hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis (752.7) or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these conditions does not meet the standard.
2-27 Learning, psychiatric and behavioral disorders
n. Current or history of psychosexual conditions (302), including, but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias, do not meet the standard.
2-14 Genetalia
a. Female Genetalia
(5) History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex (P64.5), hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis (752.7), or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these conditions does not meet the standard.
2-14 Genetalia
b. Male Genetalia
(8) Current hydrocele (603.0), if large or symptomatic, does not meet the standard. Left varicocele (456.4), if symptomatic, or associated with testicular atrophy, or vericocele larger than the testis does not meet the standard. Any right varicocele (456.4) does not meet the standard.
d. History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia, such as a change of sex (P64.5), hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis (752.7) or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these conditions does not meet the standard.
2-27 Learning, psychiatric and behavioral disorders
n. Current or history of psychosexual conditions (302), including, but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias, do not meet the standard.
(1)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
Why am I not surprised that the military has standards on genitalia.
So what you are saying is, they will have to change the regulations to allow transgender members to serve.
So what you are saying is, they will have to change the regulations to allow transgender members to serve.
(2)
(0)
LTJG (Join to see)
Yes, these and other regulations in the DoD, and the other branches of service will need to be changed in order to allow open transgender service. 18 countries have already done it, so we know that it is possible and works well. We just need to get through the politics in the pentagon to get things changed.
(0)
(0)
Maj Scott Kiger, M.A.S.
I don't disagree with you but the comment "getting through the Politics at the Pentagon" has me in stitches...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I was completely unaware that this was still a rule and yes it should be changed. If you truly identify as transgender and have a burning desire to defend this country, you should not have to explain yourself. That being said, you would be required those same standards as whatever sex you identified with. No making up rules when it is convenient but aligning yourself with the male or female standards set in front of you.
(1)
(0)
Maj Scott Kiger, M.A.S.
The problem that came up in studies the Military and Government funded was the same problem we are seeing in the school system/sports/College and World competition. Transgender Men identifying as Women are dominating in sports over Females who were born Female. I could site at least 10 examples on the world stage right now including high school boys who decided they wanted to identify as women and now own all the state records in Track and Field in their respective events. Same will happen in the Military when Men who identify as women take a PT test and dominate the test scores. Olympics uses Testosterone and Phermone testing levels which dictate what gender sport you can compete in. Not perfect but might suffice.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Let me start off by saying I don't know any transgender people (to my knowledge) on basis any deeper than an acquaintance. I've met a few, might recognize them again, might not. So, I don't have enough first hand data to develop an informed opinion. So, all I can offer are my feelings and some questions.
It's very hard for me to understand transgenderism. I look in the mirror, I see a man, I have no desire to see anything else. So, it's very hard for me to empathize. I don't have any ill will toward transgender folks, I take being Christian seriously and Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Last time I checked, they were still human so, it is my duty to treat them in a decent, respectful manner.
With that in mind, the stats provided above say that 90% of Transgenders are Men - Women. That being the case, there are some important questions to be answered before they are allowed to openly serve. Would the service require them to bunk with the men, wear uniforms of the men, shower with the men and then dress as they please in their off time? Or, would they be with the women all of the time? If so, how would female soldiers react to this? Having someone born a man showering with them?
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be allowed. I just think the issue is a bit more complicated than yes or no. It requires a lot of discussion and by people who are a lot smarter than I am.
It's very hard for me to understand transgenderism. I look in the mirror, I see a man, I have no desire to see anything else. So, it's very hard for me to empathize. I don't have any ill will toward transgender folks, I take being Christian seriously and Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Last time I checked, they were still human so, it is my duty to treat them in a decent, respectful manner.
With that in mind, the stats provided above say that 90% of Transgenders are Men - Women. That being the case, there are some important questions to be answered before they are allowed to openly serve. Would the service require them to bunk with the men, wear uniforms of the men, shower with the men and then dress as they please in their off time? Or, would they be with the women all of the time? If so, how would female soldiers react to this? Having someone born a man showering with them?
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be allowed. I just think the issue is a bit more complicated than yes or no. It requires a lot of discussion and by people who are a lot smarter than I am.
(1)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
In the realm of your third paragraph, which PT test standard would they need to pass? Would they be allowed in combat (still male only)? Etc.
The issue is that the politically correct manner to address them is to address them as "she, her, female" but from a military and position standpoint, which is more correct?
The issue is that the politically correct manner to address them is to address them as "she, her, female" but from a military and position standpoint, which is more correct?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
"That being the case, there are some important questions to be answered before they are allowed to openly serve. Would the service require them to bunk with the men, wear uniforms of the men, shower with the men and then dress as they please in their off time? Or, would they be with the women all of the time?"
The "usual drill" when "gender reassignment" is completed (definitions of "completed" vary by jurisdiction) is for the issuance of a new birth certificate reflecting the "rectified" gender.
That would mean that the person would, for all legal purposes, belong to the gender set out on the birth certificate.
Thus, both the "before" and the "after" treatment is relatively straight forward.
The real issue would be during the transition period and I can't see any problem with having admission standards requiring the applicant to "disclose" in the same manner as they are required to disclose any pre-existing medical condition which could cause administrative/operational difficulties and requiring an appropriate "recovery period" after the rectification of the condition in much the same manner as ADHD or broken bones are currently treated as "dis-qualifiers" until AFTER both successful remediation and a period long enough to provide evidence that they will not cause problems with the applicant's military duties. [Of course, if the person DOES NOT DISCLOSE then they expose themselves to a potential "Fraudulent Enlistment" charge for "failing to disclose a pre-existing condition" (which means that they aren't going to get the military to pay for the medical procedures in any event).] This would prevent the military from having to pay for remediation for any NEW enlistments and would (probably) prevent any uncorrected transgender people who are currently serving from re-enlisting and, since being transgender isn't even remotely "service related" the VA won't have to pay for the medical procedures either. I estimate that this will take care of approximately 99 [login to see] [login to see] % of the potential situations where a service member could conceivably require gender reassignment surgery.
On the other hand, everyone could get all bent out of shape and start running around wailing that new rules are required to deal with this incredibly complex and compelling problem.
The "usual drill" when "gender reassignment" is completed (definitions of "completed" vary by jurisdiction) is for the issuance of a new birth certificate reflecting the "rectified" gender.
That would mean that the person would, for all legal purposes, belong to the gender set out on the birth certificate.
Thus, both the "before" and the "after" treatment is relatively straight forward.
The real issue would be during the transition period and I can't see any problem with having admission standards requiring the applicant to "disclose" in the same manner as they are required to disclose any pre-existing medical condition which could cause administrative/operational difficulties and requiring an appropriate "recovery period" after the rectification of the condition in much the same manner as ADHD or broken bones are currently treated as "dis-qualifiers" until AFTER both successful remediation and a period long enough to provide evidence that they will not cause problems with the applicant's military duties. [Of course, if the person DOES NOT DISCLOSE then they expose themselves to a potential "Fraudulent Enlistment" charge for "failing to disclose a pre-existing condition" (which means that they aren't going to get the military to pay for the medical procedures in any event).] This would prevent the military from having to pay for remediation for any NEW enlistments and would (probably) prevent any uncorrected transgender people who are currently serving from re-enlisting and, since being transgender isn't even remotely "service related" the VA won't have to pay for the medical procedures either. I estimate that this will take care of approximately 99 [login to see] [login to see] % of the potential situations where a service member could conceivably require gender reassignment surgery.
On the other hand, everyone could get all bent out of shape and start running around wailing that new rules are required to deal with this incredibly complex and compelling problem.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google