Posted on Jan 26, 2015
When, Not If, Will We See Open Transgender Military Service?
118K
1.39K
580
106
102
4
On November 23, 2014, the Palm Center released a statement entitled "Military Services Have Failed To Comply With New Defense Department Rules On Transgender Personnel."
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/services%20out%20of%20compliance%20memo.pdf
This followed a report from last March where former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders led a group that concluded there were no sound medical reasons why transgender people couldn't serve in the military services. It also followed an August report outlining a blueprint for how transgender people can be integrated into the military services - integrated much in the same way as 18 of our allies have already accomplished within their military services.
Military Times covered release of this latest report by the Palm Center. "A change to a Pentagon personnel policy three months ago loosens the rules barring transgender troops from serving in the U.S. military," stated the Army and Navy Times in their article entitled Report: Loophole could allow transgender troops to serve under new DoD policy, "giving the individual services leeway to retain these personnel." The article further stated, "The update -- to Defense Department Instruction 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System -- provides a loophole for the services to let transgender troops serve instead of requiring administrative separation, the Palm Center says."
The same socially conservative religious organizations that argued against repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) such as the Center for Military Readiness, the Center for Security Policy, and the Family Research Council, are using almost identical arguments. In the end, those arguments didn't work and DADT was repealed.
DADT was a federal law passed in 1993 that barred lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) service members from serving openly in the military services, and the law needed repeal before LGB service members could serve openly in recent years. All that bars transgender people from serving openly now is the DoD and individual service regulations. And, it appears that the overarching DoD regulation was weakened last August so that the four DoD military services could change their rules now to allow open transgender service.
The military didn't implode when LGB service members could serve openly in the American military services; the military won't implode if – or when - transgender service members can serve openly in the American military services. Honestly, does anybody currently serving in the military, who has given more than a moment's thought to this, really believe there won't come a point in the next five years or so where transgender service members are serving openly? I think most people who've put some thought into this know that it's not a question of whether America will have openly transgender service members at some point, but rather a question of when we'll have it.
So with that in mind, do you agree it's a question of "when" and not "if"? And if you agree it's a "when," how soon do you believe we'll see open transgender military service?
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/services%20out%20of%20compliance%20memo.pdf
This followed a report from last March where former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders led a group that concluded there were no sound medical reasons why transgender people couldn't serve in the military services. It also followed an August report outlining a blueprint for how transgender people can be integrated into the military services - integrated much in the same way as 18 of our allies have already accomplished within their military services.
Military Times covered release of this latest report by the Palm Center. "A change to a Pentagon personnel policy three months ago loosens the rules barring transgender troops from serving in the U.S. military," stated the Army and Navy Times in their article entitled Report: Loophole could allow transgender troops to serve under new DoD policy, "giving the individual services leeway to retain these personnel." The article further stated, "The update -- to Defense Department Instruction 1332.18, Disability Evaluation System -- provides a loophole for the services to let transgender troops serve instead of requiring administrative separation, the Palm Center says."
The same socially conservative religious organizations that argued against repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) such as the Center for Military Readiness, the Center for Security Policy, and the Family Research Council, are using almost identical arguments. In the end, those arguments didn't work and DADT was repealed.
DADT was a federal law passed in 1993 that barred lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) service members from serving openly in the military services, and the law needed repeal before LGB service members could serve openly in recent years. All that bars transgender people from serving openly now is the DoD and individual service regulations. And, it appears that the overarching DoD regulation was weakened last August so that the four DoD military services could change their rules now to allow open transgender service.
The military didn't implode when LGB service members could serve openly in the American military services; the military won't implode if – or when - transgender service members can serve openly in the American military services. Honestly, does anybody currently serving in the military, who has given more than a moment's thought to this, really believe there won't come a point in the next five years or so where transgender service members are serving openly? I think most people who've put some thought into this know that it's not a question of whether America will have openly transgender service members at some point, but rather a question of when we'll have it.
So with that in mind, do you agree it's a question of "when" and not "if"? And if you agree it's a "when," how soon do you believe we'll see open transgender military service?
Policy
Transgender
Don't ask Don't tell (DADT)
Command Post
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 163
1
1
0
SFC Mark Merino This tells you it is come sooner than you think.
Army eases policy on transgender soldiers
The decision to discharge transgender soldiers from the Army now has to be made by a top, senior civilian official, documents obtained by USA TODAY show, a move that will make it more difficult to remove such troops from the service.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't believe this is a military question, possibly posted by a small heavily vocal minority. Serving admirably has nothing to do with who you have sex with.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Look the point should be that one serves a purpose bigger than yourself. For the greater good. One does not serve to make a statement "look at me, look at what I am and what I did". Serve to make a difference, not to make a statement.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Where is the stone honoring all the heterosexual veterans killed in action?
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 Autumn Sandeen PO; You might have missed the fact that most of those 18 countries have "figured it out" by emphasizing that it simply doesn't matter and not by "celebrating the differences".
There is LESS "diversity" in those military because they don't have (for example) "Gay soldiers, Lesbian soldiers, Bisexual soldiers, Transgender soldiers, 'Queer' soldiers, and Straight soldiers" they simply have "soldiers".
There is LESS "diversity" in those military because they don't have (for example) "Gay soldiers, Lesbian soldiers, Bisexual soldiers, Transgender soldiers, 'Queer' soldiers, and Straight soldiers" they simply have "soldiers".
(2)
(0)
PO1 Autumn Sandeen
Well, I'd argue that's not 100% true. They each have documents that deliniates policy that implement transgender integration into their militaries.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 Autumn Sandeen PO; Of course they have documents. When did you ever know the military to do anything (official) without documents.
Where successful those documents can be summed up as follows:
[1] All positions are open to all service members REGARDLESS of current gender.
[2] All positions are open to all service members REGARDLESS of current sexual orientation.
[3] All service members fall under the appropriate regulations for their current gender REGARDLESS of any prior gender.
Translated into "GovSpeak" those three points seldom take up more than 200 pages of specific regulations or more than 500 pages of legislation.
Where successful those documents can be summed up as follows:
[1] All positions are open to all service members REGARDLESS of current gender.
[2] All positions are open to all service members REGARDLESS of current sexual orientation.
[3] All service members fall under the appropriate regulations for their current gender REGARDLESS of any prior gender.
Translated into "GovSpeak" those three points seldom take up more than 200 pages of specific regulations or more than 500 pages of legislation.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Firstly, by the explanations I have been given, being trans is a medical issue not a sexual orientation so that entire message was a false equivalency. I think it goes without saying they cannot transition while in the service right? Should we pay a soldier to be on active duty and non deployable for x number years? I also point out that 18 other countries don't have the most powerful fighting force on the planet. Other 'states' burn people in cages. Should we?
I was also a medic. I have concerns for an Infantryman in austere conditions that needs constant hormone medication on an extended 'oh shite conventional WWIII' situation. Regardless of the situation's probability, someone's self esteem is not worth national security.
Let's take your message as read for a moment, I'll also point out that I'm a gay soldier and I think that was a far less complicated issue anyway. Besides during DADT, I was a god damned proud line medic and that identity was an order of magnitude more important to me than the gay identity.
I was also a medic. I have concerns for an Infantryman in austere conditions that needs constant hormone medication on an extended 'oh shite conventional WWIII' situation. Regardless of the situation's probability, someone's self esteem is not worth national security.
Let's take your message as read for a moment, I'll also point out that I'm a gay soldier and I think that was a far less complicated issue anyway. Besides during DADT, I was a god damned proud line medic and that identity was an order of magnitude more important to me than the gay identity.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Kevin McCulley - Staff; I noticed the crashing silence which followed immediately upon your "I'll also point out that I'm a gay soldier and I think that was a far less complicated issue anyway. Besides during DADT, I was a god damned proud line medic and that identity was an order of magnitude more important to me than the gay identity.".
I guess that that's because people don't actually believe that you are "a gay soldier" since you aren't wearing lipstick and a feathered boa with your uniform.
I'm sure that those people are just dying to ask you how you managed to do your ruck marches while wearing high heels.
I guess that that's because people don't actually believe that you are "a gay soldier" since you aren't wearing lipstick and a feathered boa with your uniform.
I'm sure that those people are just dying to ask you how you managed to do your ruck marches while wearing high heels.
(3)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
Hell, I could probably do it in whatever footwear I put on my feet. Rucking was the one thing I was a stud at... more like a damned pack mule.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
My opinion on this as long as they do their job I don't care. This will happen at some point...the military shouldn't be a social experiment but it kind of is. We've been breaking barriers down for years showing the world that what was thought to be impossible is possible. Will it be possibly awkward at times yes...but most things are as ackward as we make them to be.
Now do I want to pay for someone to get it done...Nope. I don't want to pay for physically and mentally able people to be on food stamps and welfare either because it's easier than finding a job....but I do. It's a can of worms that once opened we'd be best ready to handle. Embrace the idea is the only way to go
Now do I want to pay for someone to get it done...Nope. I don't want to pay for physically and mentally able people to be on food stamps and welfare either because it's easier than finding a job....but I do. It's a can of worms that once opened we'd be best ready to handle. Embrace the idea is the only way to go
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Too many people think of policies like DADT and like policies as actions taken against LGBT individuals. they are not. DADT was not put in place because "we don't want no gays in our mili'try" but because we knew there already were LGBT individuals serving, and they were serving along side a LOT of bigots in the military at that time. we don't like to mention that, while the military strives to be an equal opportunity force, there were a LOT of people who hated homosexuals serving back then. If a homosexual service member outed themselves or was outed another way, they were liable to be the victims of violence from those bigots. DADT was the military's way of protecting LGB service members in the only way it could from the command level. We now no longer fear that, so DADT was no longer necessary. I myself was personally afraid that when DADT was repealed an openly gay service member would become a victim, effectively setting the military back 50 years on the subject. I was relieved nothing happened.
Now, when it comes to transgender individuals, I think we will, but the military likely just doesn't know HOW to deal with the unique logistical situation they think transgender service members will bring with them (which is probably an inaccurate idea, remember how we heard about different barracks and latrines/showers for gay SMs? did we see those? no, because it was a dumb idea and we didn't need them). What would speed up the process would be transgender individuals currently serving in silence writing letters (even anonymously) to high level military officers about their experience, stating that they don't have limits like they might be perceived to have, or what problems they face with reasonable solutions. If Transgender service members want to be represented and accommodated communication is the key.
Now, when it comes to transgender individuals, I think we will, but the military likely just doesn't know HOW to deal with the unique logistical situation they think transgender service members will bring with them (which is probably an inaccurate idea, remember how we heard about different barracks and latrines/showers for gay SMs? did we see those? no, because it was a dumb idea and we didn't need them). What would speed up the process would be transgender individuals currently serving in silence writing letters (even anonymously) to high level military officers about their experience, stating that they don't have limits like they might be perceived to have, or what problems they face with reasonable solutions. If Transgender service members want to be represented and accommodated communication is the key.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Nicole Biscoe
Very true! I've written letters to my state senators and also spoken with my command leadership. Now that I'm getting out, my goal is to continue the fight forward until there are equal rights for everyone serving in the military! We'll never give up :)
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
LTJG (Join to see)
Midshipmen, where are you getting all this knowledge of the working within the military in the past? With an all volunteer force we enter knowing the current rules and if we lie or falsify information, we pay a price. When those rules are changed or are amended then we work within the new rules.
I think it would be a terrible idea to try to reshape the US Military on a model of the nations you are mentioning. IF America wants to give up it status as the World Superpower, reduce the size and scope of the military, then we can talk about pushing such a plan but if we want to remain the ‘The United States of America’ then such an action is ignorant, delusional or the plan of people willing to sacrifice American lives for a personal agenda.
Midshipmen, where are you getting all this knowledge of the working within the military in the past? With an all volunteer force we enter knowing the current rules and if we lie or falsify information, we pay a price. When those rules are changed or are amended then we work within the new rules.
I think it would be a terrible idea to try to reshape the US Military on a model of the nations you are mentioning. IF America wants to give up it status as the World Superpower, reduce the size and scope of the military, then we can talk about pushing such a plan but if we want to remain the ‘The United States of America’ then such an action is ignorant, delusional or the plan of people willing to sacrifice American lives for a personal agenda.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Donald Hammond
How about we all just say we are a soldier, sailor, airman, marine and not try to identify by our sexual preferences, color of our skin, religion etc etc. Just do your job and not worry about the rest of it. I always expected the sailors below me to be sailors. Nothing else.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Well I'll say this, remember what Vice President Biden said about just gay and lesbian soldiers, who cares so long as they can shoot!!! Not exact wording, but Mr Vice President speaks his own way!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
To me the bottom line is that if this does happen it will be 10 to 20 years down the road based on how slow thoughts, policy, public opinion and the operational environment (culturally speaking) change. Ever one is has posted some valid roadblocks that would keep Transgender Soldiers from serving openly and there are many more out there which need to be taken into consideration. PO1 Seadeen, you are correct in your evaluation that the military didn't imploded when DADT was repealed and the services where prepared to handle openly gay service members to serve because all of us knew people who were. However, the services were not ready to handle all the questions, policy changes that might need to take place, how to handle situation where same sex marriages erode and the member is unable to get a divorce. I could go on and on, but let be honest the military is not ready for it and it's an issue that doesn't not need to be forced at this time.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Honestly do not see it going any further. With every reason military is designed for those who are fit to serve on combat and military operations, not joining to hold military accountable for their transformation, creating a setback for military to be readily and effectively to defend our nation if and when called upon. With another rational reason is that those who undergo such transformation result in changes in mentality along with being suicidal. Less not forget the recovery time period after transformation, leaving one ineffectively to perform military operations. In reality, they're not 100% stable mentally and physically to be fit to perform in the demands of military combat and operations when taking account all that's being done in the operation such as removing organs and adding implants and therapies. Not only ineffective, but also costly when demands for the military to fund and pay for these transformations. After all, military is about combat, defense and operations, not joining for makeovers.
(0)
(0)
SPC Clark Stinson
This one also sees transgender suicides aren't based on bullying, but either going through mental psychosis from removing their sexual organs that is their biological identity and grasping the reality the big mistake they've made with point of no return after such transformation.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google