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
0
0
0
Is it fair? No. However, the issue lies in this: The military is (let's be honest) still very gender-separate. Now, say there is a transgender male, who carries themself, dresses and generally passes for, a female, in IET. Now, naturally, that soldier would want to live with the gender that they most identify with. So if we allowed that, then the other soldiers of that gender would most assuredly not be comfortable with that. In coupling with that, if we were to force that soldier to lie with soldiers of their own (by birth) gender, that would make THAT soldier AND the others uncomfortable. SHARP and EO complaints would be through the roof, and when that happens, it holds the propensity to shut down entire battalions of training units, and effectively delay, if not halt training altogether. Political correctness is not something I generally believe in. However, in the interest of the direction that the military has moved, I personally cannot see it working out well for many.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Valid point, however, most transgenders in the military live as the gender which they were assigned at birth, so as to not risk their careers and their lives (they are at a very high risk still of hate related violent crimes). Also, because our military is currently segregated does not mean that it always be . . . though TBH I can't see that one changing. But you're ignoring the whole gender reassignment process. . . if a soldier had the full surgery before they enlisted and had all of their records changed - to include birth cirtificate, who would even know except for medical professionals?
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
And therein, do I agree with you. If they have undergone the reassignment surgery, and both medically and physically identify with the secondary gender PRIOR to enlistment/commission, then I see no issue. But the conflicting transgenders attempting entry, who have not undergone the reassignment or are in the proccess thereof, there are issues, and conflicts of interest and security. I actually recently had this same conversation with one of my XOs, and together, she and I came to the same conclusion. If gender-alteration is complete prior to entry into the military, then there is no issue. If it is not, then they should wait to join until the process is complete.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Being transgender does not inhibit one's ability to do his or her job. It is not relevant to any mission.
Denying the ability to serve because of being transgender is not the same as denying service to people who cannot pass the ASVAB or cannot meet basic physical fitness standards - those issues directly relate to the mission.
Denying the ability to serve because of being transgender is not the same as denying service to people who cannot pass the ASVAB or cannot meet basic physical fitness standards - those issues directly relate to the mission.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I don't think the problem is them serving. LGBT SM have been serving for a while. I believe the difference between LGB and Transgendered SM is the cost. What if a kid wakes up 2 years into a 4 year contract and decides he's transgendered? What if he wants gender reassignment surgery? Are the Services expected to pick up the cost? I say all of this believeing that there will be a policy sooner rather than later that allows transgendered people to enlist and serve openly. How to you enlist or access a transgendered person? What do the medical forms at MEPS look like? If a person knows that they are transgendered before they enlist should they tell the MEPS doc? Will there be a waiver required? Will there be an addendum to the contract that states the applicant will not seek medical treatment for gender dysphoria (mental or physical) while serving the contractual part of the MSO? All things to consider, Sir.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Here is how i look at this entire subject and it has been said a time or two before me. If they can shoot and do their job I really don't care. I only put one stipulation on this. Do not put the moves on me. If you follow that one rule we will be great. I don't care what you do in your free time as long as you do your job and have my back. I will have your back the entire time no matter what. I will not allow myself to have someone Sexual assault or harass me or any one else for that matter. Its that easy. I really wish people (That cant get over this) would open their eyes and see that we all bleed the same color. RED. I will get off my soap box now.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I wasn't truly aware of this whole debate/situation going on. I have been out of the service for a bit so maybe that's why but I noticed yesterday on my VA's homepage that there was a large notice saying how the VA is training their staff and those who volunteer, how to deal with transgender and how accepting the VA is of this...circumstance.
I truly don't know what to make of it. The military, along with society, is fluctuating more towards being forgiving of almost anything it seems. I'm all for being yourself and living your life for you but I just don't understand this. The military is suppose to be this 'well oiled machine' and I think when this 'machine' goes through so many side 'modifications' that shouldn't be of focus, the gears tend to wear down, so to speak. Does this ramble make any sense? Bottom line: just don't understand it.
EDIT:
And when I say "fluctuating towards being forgiving of almost anything", I am not putting down transgenders but I'm just speaking overall, in my opinion. The thing is, your you and you think differently than others; so be you. But when things of this nature become such a distraction within the military like the same sex deal years back, it just tears the major focus. I dunno; again...my opinion.
I truly don't know what to make of it. The military, along with society, is fluctuating more towards being forgiving of almost anything it seems. I'm all for being yourself and living your life for you but I just don't understand this. The military is suppose to be this 'well oiled machine' and I think when this 'machine' goes through so many side 'modifications' that shouldn't be of focus, the gears tend to wear down, so to speak. Does this ramble make any sense? Bottom line: just don't understand it.
EDIT:
And when I say "fluctuating towards being forgiving of almost anything", I am not putting down transgenders but I'm just speaking overall, in my opinion. The thing is, your you and you think differently than others; so be you. But when things of this nature become such a distraction within the military like the same sex deal years back, it just tears the major focus. I dunno; again...my opinion.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wow there are some really wild ideas here, some dislike the pic "Capt Clinton Albaugh" because they THINK they see something that is not there. look again Capt, try some contextual viewing. others make blanket comments about other peoples views "MIDN LTJG Tucker Marberry", People that have not yet served but are still in school should open their ears and close their lips. Listen first and maybe you will learn something. The Idea of Transgender in the military is another step in the dumbing down of our military, Anyone that puts themselves into a group that occupies that much of their lives, is not giving 100% to their country, therefore they are incompatible with military service. If they are that confused in their life, then no they do not need to serve.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Why is this a question? I am glad with everything else going on transgender in the military s whats really important. I think we all need to step back and ask ourselves what are we really trying to accomplish as a society. If anyone wants to join the military and they are able why does their sexual orientation matter? Do I personally agree with it? Does it really matter if I or anyone else does or not? When you sign on the dotted line you are not a gay soldier you are not a straight soldier you are not a transgender soldier you are a solder who is held to the same standards as every other soldier if you cant keep those standards then we can talk about if you should be allowed in or not.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's sad to see the world's finest military organizations being torn apart by attempts to use us as guinea pigs for the myriad of social experiments being shoved down our throats. When we started making an issue of our individual sexuality through DADT, it was only a matter of time until the shroud would be removed completely. Now we have openly homosexual individuals serving in our Armed Forces - and that causes us to focus on the wrong aspects of their character. My point is - it should NOT matter.
In conjunction with the repeal of DADT, we started seeing our Chaplains being hand-cuffed by not being allowed to express their faith to others and forcing them to violate their beliefs in performing rites for these same homosexuals. Pretty soon, there will be a call to disband the Chaplain Services all-together citing their "intolerance" towards these fringe groups that society is working so hard to provide special rights to.
Now we are seeing the push for acceptance of "transgender" people to serve openly in the Armed Forces. Really? Another group looking for special privileges? First, we need to understand the definition - a person whose self-identification differs from their genetic sex. Many of them choose to dress and act as the opposite sex (the sex/gender they identify with) - rather than the one they are born with. So that leads to a number of issues in a close/closed society such as a military unit (housing, job assignments, combat roles, etc).
Military service is reserved for those with the desire to serve who also meet a defined set of standards, both physical and psychological. Given the definition of transgender - and a clear understanding of Psychology - I would have to strongly urge caution before issuing a blanket invitation to all who identify themselves as transgender. All prospective recruits must continue to be evaluated individually against the standards and criteria before being allowed to sign an enlistment contract.
To say it's OK because some transgender people have already served in the Armed Forces does not justify or warrant allowing ALL to serve. That statement only goes to prove my belief - it should NOT matter nor should it become a known fact.
In conjunction with the repeal of DADT, we started seeing our Chaplains being hand-cuffed by not being allowed to express their faith to others and forcing them to violate their beliefs in performing rites for these same homosexuals. Pretty soon, there will be a call to disband the Chaplain Services all-together citing their "intolerance" towards these fringe groups that society is working so hard to provide special rights to.
Now we are seeing the push for acceptance of "transgender" people to serve openly in the Armed Forces. Really? Another group looking for special privileges? First, we need to understand the definition - a person whose self-identification differs from their genetic sex. Many of them choose to dress and act as the opposite sex (the sex/gender they identify with) - rather than the one they are born with. So that leads to a number of issues in a close/closed society such as a military unit (housing, job assignments, combat roles, etc).
Military service is reserved for those with the desire to serve who also meet a defined set of standards, both physical and psychological. Given the definition of transgender - and a clear understanding of Psychology - I would have to strongly urge caution before issuing a blanket invitation to all who identify themselves as transgender. All prospective recruits must continue to be evaluated individually against the standards and criteria before being allowed to sign an enlistment contract.
To say it's OK because some transgender people have already served in the Armed Forces does not justify or warrant allowing ALL to serve. That statement only goes to prove my belief - it should NOT matter nor should it become a known fact.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Chaplains not being allowed to express their faith in the same manner as civilian preachers has always been part of the cost of being a chaplain. SMs need to know that they can count on the chaplain for emotional guidance even if the chaplain is of a dissenting religion to their own. and what will the cost of allowing Transgender to serve openly really be? Present me with an argument that was not used against allowing homosexuals to serve openly which was then promptly proven to be nothing but paranoia.
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Alan Saunders
Frankly, I don't feel obligated to prove my argument to you as I believe I have already stated the case clearly. Don't forget that gender identity confusion is an internal issue and should not become public knowledge or public policy.
For example, if you were born a male and enlisted in the military as such then decided you more closely identify as a female, that is a personal issue that you would need to resolve internally. You would not go to your commander and tell them you want to be treated now as a female because you felt like it. That would not work in a military organization where up to that point, you presented yourself as a male. Do you not see the problems which this type of scenario would cause within the unit - the broken trust due to perceived lies? This is problematic in a civilian setting and even more so in a military organization.
Try it sometime. Go to your battle buddy and tell him/her you've decided to switch gender identities and see what type of reaction you get.
BTW, the arguments against homosexuals serving openly remain valid and were not quickly proven to be paranoia as you claim. In fact, the number and frequency of sexual harassment complaints has grown in the short time since DADT was repealed raising questions about the validity of that change.
Finally, I have not seen any compelling reasons given for allowing transgender people to serve in the military. Inclusion is not valid because there still are general restrictions on who may serve.
For example, if you were born a male and enlisted in the military as such then decided you more closely identify as a female, that is a personal issue that you would need to resolve internally. You would not go to your commander and tell them you want to be treated now as a female because you felt like it. That would not work in a military organization where up to that point, you presented yourself as a male. Do you not see the problems which this type of scenario would cause within the unit - the broken trust due to perceived lies? This is problematic in a civilian setting and even more so in a military organization.
Try it sometime. Go to your battle buddy and tell him/her you've decided to switch gender identities and see what type of reaction you get.
BTW, the arguments against homosexuals serving openly remain valid and were not quickly proven to be paranoia as you claim. In fact, the number and frequency of sexual harassment complaints has grown in the short time since DADT was repealed raising questions about the validity of that change.
Finally, I have not seen any compelling reasons given for allowing transgender people to serve in the military. Inclusion is not valid because there still are general restrictions on who may serve.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
i think it's fair.... cause anyone that changes their body, or their primal instinct is very insecure, there for will allow weakness and selfishness within the ranks, cannot pervert the dicipline and brotherhood of our beloved corps!!!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google