Posted on Oct 22, 2014
Transgender Service Members: Serving in Silence
165K
2.45K
1.2K
109
85
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 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 260
7
7
0
I was 23-24 years of age in an airborne combat arms unit when I was put in a position of having soldiers that I was responsible for. That is a lot of pressure for a young soldier, the same pressure being felt by many in today's world. It was at that point that I realized that I didn't want to have to explain to the parents why their son didn't make it back. It was also at that point that I realized I didn't care what gender, color, ethnic background, sexual orientation, religious background, etc. that you were so long as you afforded my soldiers and myself the best opportunity to accomplish the mission and get back home. I believe anyone that would pick a lesser qualified soldier merely because of gender or sexual orientation is not much of a leader.
(7)
(0)
PO1 Autumn Sandeen
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
"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
This was the moment of truth. The ultimate test before the coronation. A deacon would extend his hand below the robe of the future pope and check for the presence of two testicles. Middle Ages...
(3)
(1)
SGT Aras Troy
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.
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
It might not be fair per say, but I don't think the current military environment knows how to adapt to accomdate transgender service members. Do they fall under male standards or female standards? It will always be a question...
(7)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT Kristin Wiley, I'd have to agree with you. The military isn't aware right now of how to deal with these issues.
They have not allowed enlistments for MTF or FTM transsexuals yet. Personally, if this door did open, a MTF should naturally be integrated with females and vice versa for the FTM.
To simplify, a transgender pre-op is still a transgender. A male transgender identifies and has a "female" mental identity, yet has the sexual equipment of a male. Because he appears to be a male, he would be billeted with other males, which isn't too different than gay males billeting with other males, EXCEPT, he doesn't identify as a male, but as a female. Similarly, it would be much like placing a female into male billeting with other males.
Complicated. I think that the only way this could work is if we were 100% integrated, both males and females. It removes the gender-orientation question, because the field is more even distributed in terms of personal gender identity.
I think a good starting point would be education, to introduce service-members to the concepts and differences and commonalities of sexuality and gender. From a few of these posts, I have learned that we have a long way to go on this. And was honestly surprised that many found the subject to be irrelevant, provided the SM could perform his or her job effectively.
I admire progressive thought and don't regard blanket statements of disgust as useful or informative. Without talking about these things, we can't learn about them.
They have not allowed enlistments for MTF or FTM transsexuals yet. Personally, if this door did open, a MTF should naturally be integrated with females and vice versa for the FTM.
To simplify, a transgender pre-op is still a transgender. A male transgender identifies and has a "female" mental identity, yet has the sexual equipment of a male. Because he appears to be a male, he would be billeted with other males, which isn't too different than gay males billeting with other males, EXCEPT, he doesn't identify as a male, but as a female. Similarly, it would be much like placing a female into male billeting with other males.
Complicated. I think that the only way this could work is if we were 100% integrated, both males and females. It removes the gender-orientation question, because the field is more even distributed in terms of personal gender identity.
I think a good starting point would be education, to introduce service-members to the concepts and differences and commonalities of sexuality and gender. From a few of these posts, I have learned that we have a long way to go on this. And was honestly surprised that many found the subject to be irrelevant, provided the SM could perform his or her job effectively.
I admire progressive thought and don't regard blanket statements of disgust as useful or informative. Without talking about these things, we can't learn about them.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Shaun Taylor
SGT Kristin Wiley The navy did it for years. only difference was with the measurements. And I've seen women outscore men on marine corps pfts. Like my mother still says...never under estimate the strength of a determined woman.
(2)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
SSgt John Steigerwald I am not saying we shouldn't approach the issue, but right now our military does not see this as an issue that needs to be rectified. There are many more smaller steps we need to make before we can reach this point. As SGT (Join to see) pointed out showering, sleeping quarters, and physical standards all need to be changed to make this work. The military is still working some of these things out from the repeal of DADT, and now integrating women into combat positions. I am of the opinion that the Armed Forces need to develop gender neutral standards, and take advantage of the individual capabilities of service members rather than limit them based on their gender.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
I have to say that, reading this forum, I've seen a lot of the typical posts elsewhere - all the "PC is ruining my country" and "dem queers, it's yucky and therefore bad" or of course, "That's against GAAAWWWWDDDD!!!"
But the grand majority of the posts here seem to be along the lines of "If they are willing to serve, let them serve." Thank you guys for gradually restoring my faith in humanity.
But the grand majority of the posts here seem to be along the lines of "If they are willing to serve, let them serve." Thank you guys for gradually restoring my faith in humanity.
(6)
(0)
7
6
1
Fair or not is not really the issue.
If a perfectly capable servicething can serve, and serve well - let them. But, this does not give special privilege to allow them to flaunt this position. There should be no outward display of this, as it is not allowed for anyone else regardless of sexual orientation or association.
There were plenty of shitbag straight, sologender soldiers I would have gladly swapped out for someone who could do the job well and want to do it.
And if all of this is a distraction, then the issue is not these people we are considering to allow or not - the issue is with the rest of us...
If a perfectly capable servicething can serve, and serve well - let them. But, this does not give special privilege to allow them to flaunt this position. There should be no outward display of this, as it is not allowed for anyone else regardless of sexual orientation or association.
There were plenty of shitbag straight, sologender soldiers I would have gladly swapped out for someone who could do the job well and want to do it.
And if all of this is a distraction, then the issue is not these people we are considering to allow or not - the issue is with the rest of us...
(7)
(1)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Michael Barden, I don't know, Sir. I guess, if I ever face her, I'll do my utmost as a leader to treat her with respect and compassion. If you are in this position, what would you do? I mean no disrespect. Maybe you have dealt with this conundrum before. If not, what would be your COA, so that I might learn?
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Michael Barden, I would refer to them by their "claimed gender" because I don't believe in causing a person more undue psychological pain.
Bradley Manning, I just refer to as an traitor.
If they were seeking to transition, while in service, I agree with you COA. My reasons are based on the interests of the military, in time and expense of procedure. I can't comment on what their options should be if trying to re-enter the military as another gender, though. That is where the questions arise regarding new PT standards, etc.
I think on much of this, we'll just have to agree to disagree, Sir. Thanks for your input and time.
Bradley Manning, I just refer to as an traitor.
If they were seeking to transition, while in service, I agree with you COA. My reasons are based on the interests of the military, in time and expense of procedure. I can't comment on what their options should be if trying to re-enter the military as another gender, though. That is where the questions arise regarding new PT standards, etc.
I think on much of this, we'll just have to agree to disagree, Sir. Thanks for your input and time.
(4)
(0)
Suspended Profile
From a personal standpoint I am disgusted by the fact that these people are prohibited from joining our services because of how they choose to identify themselves. I believe that if a person is able to perform their duties to the best of their abilities, maintain a professional demeanor and be that great service member we need in our armed forces then there is absolutely no reason they should be ostracized or kept from duty. Our priority in the military period is to always put the mission first and to put our best members forward, how they choose to identify themselves should not be a question when it comes to who we, as a force put up for deployments, special duties or anything else. That is putting them in a box, it is demoralizing and wrong regardless of how it is viewed.
 I just don't understand why we as a military community would tell someone who helps us accomplish our mission that because of how they choose to identify themselves they are unable to continue to be apart of what we do every single day, we are supposed to be a family from what I hear everyday, so why would we turn against our own?
 I just don't understand why we as a military community would tell someone who helps us accomplish our mission that because of how they choose to identify themselves they are unable to continue to be apart of what we do every single day, we are supposed to be a family from what I hear everyday, so why would we turn against our own?
A1C Kenneth Crocker
old good fellow afb interesting opinion i think it would cause way to many problems more bad then good so they say but on a side note i have grand memorys there but the commander is something else and it sucks u cant drink at the smoke pits any more sorry lol i might have had a hand in that
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
On that side note, I am not a student, I am permanent party here at Goodfellow AFB. The fact that we discriminate against people for everything already causes plenty of problems. A transgender person has every right to service as a person who is not, the fact that we would stop them from serving and being a part of our team is demoralizing. If you are a man turned woman or the other way, it isn't an issue that you have chosen to do so, but that others refuse to accept that person for their choice and change their opinions and work habits with them for personal reasons that have nothing to do with the workplace.
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Yes it is silly we keep people out for such things as ADD and ADHD. Many of them can function as normally as anyone else in the military. When I entered they were unheard of, and now I would of been disqualified due to them with Asperger's. Silly things people with Asperger's pay so much attention to the smaller details that many people miss. So for some MOSes it would be good thing to have these type of people in them for the mission.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I've always told my Soldiers, "I don't care if you're purple with pink poka dots. We all wear the same uniform that says US Army. My expectation is that YOU show up on time and ready to perform. If you do not we will have issues."
5
5
0
In regards to transgender individuals being disqualified for serving in the military, I personally feel that this issue should have never been an issue in the first place. This should be handled the same way as just about any other person serving in the military, be it a male, female, gay or straight. A person's ability to do their job has nothing to do with how they identify themselves but of how they conduct themselves. If a person is physically and mentally capable of meeting all the specified requirements for a particular MOS, then they qualify for that MOS. I have served with Soldiers who were openly gay in combat situations and they perform as well as a Soldier who is straight. Know why? Because they are SOLDIERS. Orientation or Identity of an individual will only affect that person so much, but it is the strength of character and perseverance that will make that person a true Soldier. So in response to the question, I feel that Transgender individuals should NOT be disqualified solely for identifying as they do. They should be given all the same rights and opportunities that straight and gay Soldiers are afforded. We fight and some of us DIE in order to protect the rights of every single American. Why then are we as these protectors limiting the rights of those who want to support and defend those rights with Honor?
(5)
(0)
PO1 John Y.
The key words (to me) in your comments are "mentally capable" or "mentally qualified". A transgender person is not mentally qualified in my opinion. Secondly, as it has been pointed out in this lengthy discussion, serving in the U.S. Armed Forces is a privilege not a right. There is no guarantee someone can serve in the military.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Hopefully the US military will follow lots and lots of other militaries who have found it pretty simple to accommodate gender diversity and even gender changes. Having the wrong gender is a complicated mental and physical issue, but it's not worse than a lot of the conditions covered under military medical insurance. And the benefit is a happy and healthy service member.
(5)
(0)
6
5
1
COL Ted Mc
Actually it isn't "political correctness" so much as "I will only take positions which I know will ensure me gaining more support than taking them loses me at that particular point in time and will take exactly the opposite position later if I believe that doing so will gain me more support than it loses me - but I will always have the freedom to take some other position at some other time if doing that increases the support I have.".
I heard the Police Chief from Cleveland (or possibly Chicago) on the radio the other day after his own Police Union voted 99% "No Confidence" in him because he fired a Police Officer who shot someone 14 times and then claimed "Self Defence". The Police Chief's position was that 14 times was WELL BEYOND the boundaries of "Self Defence".
The Police Chief was responding to criticism over the fact that he had answered his cell phone while attending a community meeting organized by people who were upset simply because a White Police Officer had shot an unarmed Black teenager 14 times.
The Police Chief said that the call had been as a result of a (Black) five year old girl being shot in the head and killed during a drive-by shooting (carried out by Blacks) and that he had finally exploded and excoriated both the media and the "Greyhound Demonstrators" for completely ignoring the fact that over 80% of homicides in his city were "Black on Black", over 80% of the violent crimes in his city were "Black on Black", and over 80% of the crime in general in his city was "Black on Black". He challenged his audience to name any three murder victims (excluding the young fellow shot the 14 times) from the past month and his audience was completely unable to do so.
After all it isn't really news/important when a Black male kills a Black male - is it? (I mean it won't increase circulation and hence revenue will it?)
But it's the end of the Universe if a White Male kills a Black male - right? (I mean it will increase circulation and hence revenue won't it?)
I heard the Police Chief from Cleveland (or possibly Chicago) on the radio the other day after his own Police Union voted 99% "No Confidence" in him because he fired a Police Officer who shot someone 14 times and then claimed "Self Defence". The Police Chief's position was that 14 times was WELL BEYOND the boundaries of "Self Defence".
The Police Chief was responding to criticism over the fact that he had answered his cell phone while attending a community meeting organized by people who were upset simply because a White Police Officer had shot an unarmed Black teenager 14 times.
The Police Chief said that the call had been as a result of a (Black) five year old girl being shot in the head and killed during a drive-by shooting (carried out by Blacks) and that he had finally exploded and excoriated both the media and the "Greyhound Demonstrators" for completely ignoring the fact that over 80% of homicides in his city were "Black on Black", over 80% of the violent crimes in his city were "Black on Black", and over 80% of the crime in general in his city was "Black on Black". He challenged his audience to name any three murder victims (excluding the young fellow shot the 14 times) from the past month and his audience was completely unable to do so.
After all it isn't really news/important when a Black male kills a Black male - is it? (I mean it won't increase circulation and hence revenue will it?)
But it's the end of the Universe if a White Male kills a Black male - right? (I mean it will increase circulation and hence revenue won't it?)
(1)
(1)
5
5
0
I am 50/50 in this debate. My issue would be having to go into a locker room with someone transgendered and have a ding dong flopping around. Would they have their own showers? Living quarters? The questions could become endless.
(5)
(0)
SFC Scott Parkhurst
LoL! But first all..trying to be serious here in respect to someone who maybe in trans. I would think that this would not be the case as far as the shower room. I know that they would get a shower room and such and no one would have "ding-dongs" flopping in the wind and such...besides...I could hurt someone! Got to have some humor folks! But you know darn well that either they would make accommodations of some sort. Just as I saw when I did training with officer's and I saw how they were sep. from the enlisted. No big deal. It can worked out I'm sure. If people don't react with such a big deal about it then it should go rather smoothly...But when people make a big fuss and big deal and complain and stir the pot, that's when you see how hard it "might" become...Just look how it has become overseas??? They are doing it now...and no big deal. UK is different about human sexuality then we are....
(1)
(0)
PO1 Autumn Sandeen
One of the he arguments that Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness put forward at a congressional hearing against repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) as her conjecture that out gay and lesbian soldiers would oogle at other service members in common spaces, such as barracks, berthing compartments, and showers. Of course gay and lesbian service members behaved as professionally after the repeal of DADT as they did before its repeal -- Donnelly was completely wrong.
Think for a moment: do you really believe that male-to- female transgender women service members would, on being allowed to serve openly, flauntingly wave "ding-dongs" around in front of other female soldiers? Or, perhaps, would they behave as professionally as they do now?
As a trans woman and a US Navy veteran, how you imagine trans women service members would behave and how they'd actually behave is markedly different.
And don't forget, there are trans men too. When we say trans service members, we're not talking about roughly 15K trans women, but a mix of both trans men and women.
Think for a moment: do you really believe that male-to- female transgender women service members would, on being allowed to serve openly, flauntingly wave "ding-dongs" around in front of other female soldiers? Or, perhaps, would they behave as professionally as they do now?
As a trans woman and a US Navy veteran, how you imagine trans women service members would behave and how they'd actually behave is markedly different.
And don't forget, there are trans men too. When we say trans service members, we're not talking about roughly 15K trans women, but a mix of both trans men and women.
(1)
(0)
SFC Scott Parkhurst
Well, for one thing a "male to female" isn't about to wave their "ding-dongs" around because this is something that they hate...(this is not directed to you PO1 Autumn S.) this is what someone else had stated earlier on....This is a birth defect and they don't "share" this openly! It would must likely be "tucked" and not for preying eyes to begin with. Just as it would be for female to male's....These folks act and behave just like normal people. They would have their towels wrapped around their bodies in the manner that they should have it. Their not stupid people come on. They will do what is asked of them and they don't want to make waves and they do want to get what is medically correct for them and move on and do their damn job to the best of their ability. I get this impression that people think their going to run around naked and try to hug people and some people think that they'll catch something even! What is the truth is that they are the most professional folks I've ever met and strongest. Probably because they have endured so much pain, and been through a lot of BS and so they can maintain an awful lot of stress and physical pain as well as mental pain then the average person. And so why not serve their Country just like the next guy and gal? The more people learn about this subject matter the better off everyone will be and this subject matter should die down ....
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google