Posted on Jan 26, 2015
When, Not If, Will We See Open Transgender Military Service?
94.2K
1.3K
561
86
82
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 In the end, those arguments didn't work and DADT was repealed.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 >1 y ago
Responses: 156
0
0
0
Not sure if you have all seen this yet but a brilliant idea!
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tems/blgtusa-the-first-50-state-food-tour-for-equality
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tems/blgtusa-the-first-50-state-food-tour-for-equality
BLgTUSA // The First 50 State Food Tour For Equality
Buy a BLgT Sandwich + Fund a 50 State Tour for LGBT Rights!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
While I believe it will, and should, happen, I think it is a logistical nightmare with lots of things to figure out and I hope that those things get figured out before the flood gates get opened. I think the easiest solution is PT standards of your birth gender or having one standard all must meet regardless of gender, grooming standards of your new gender, and a third restroom and shower designated for Transgender service members.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
One of the first things I learned on the first day from my Sgt was that it doesn't matter man or women, gay or straight, or any color skin. In the army we're all green. I have their back they have mine. So as long as that person is capable of doing the job and having your back then it doesn't matter. So to me I don't care what anyone identifies as as long as they have my back that's all I care about. However I do have the question of what happens if someone were to enter the military identifying as a man but changes to women later. In the army the mos 11b is not open to women would they be required to reclass or what would they do? Just curious for situations like that
(0)
(0)
PO1 Autumn Sandeen
18 of our allied countries have figured it out, including the UK, Canada, and Israel. Surely America can just cut and paste what other countries have done.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Any physical condition that requires constant medication is incompatible with military service.
(0)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
As an airman, you obviously have never actually served in a line unit.. Stuff gets lost, things don't go according to plan, and no commander has time for a troop that suddenly becomes a liability because a conex got destroyed enroute or the unit's rotation got extended (I know that is hard to comprehend being USAF).
My point is that I disagree with even those requiring synthroid being in the Infantry.. in fact, I think they make you re-class MOSs when that happens. The Infantry must always be prepared to face the worst of the worst that war will offer, this includes being completely cut off from your unit or being a Prisoner of War... You must be prepared for an existential national threat/WWII situation where you remain deployed until the termination of the conflict. I'm a former COMBAT medic. We already have enough to worry about. If you are going to go to shit w/o your meds, you have no business in an infantry occupation.
My point is that I disagree with even those requiring synthroid being in the Infantry.. in fact, I think they make you re-class MOSs when that happens. The Infantry must always be prepared to face the worst of the worst that war will offer, this includes being completely cut off from your unit or being a Prisoner of War... You must be prepared for an existential national threat/WWII situation where you remain deployed until the termination of the conflict. I'm a former COMBAT medic. We already have enough to worry about. If you are going to go to shit w/o your meds, you have no business in an infantry occupation.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SSG Kevin McCulley - You are misinformed....please don't make assumptions about my career as you do not know me. I do not assume because your are not an Airmen that you are lacking in any knowledge so you should return the same in kind. I can appreciate that you were a combat medical....but I assure you my qualifications on this subject at least as good as your's or more than likely better....unless you have also spent 20 years in the military as a medic. Oh and I am also a graduate of the Army Combat Medical course, OEMS, im PACU, SICU, ER, Amb SvS, MICU certified, and have been down range to both fixed and non-fixed facilities and have treated patients on both fixed and rotary air crafts......my last deployment was a year with the Army as their Field Medic so I am actually very well versed in the Army supply system as well as the Air Force system......so again please do not speak like I am unqualified or do not understand where you are coming from...as you have no idea what I have done in my career and making assumptions about it just shows your ignorance as to how Joint Forces operate. Anyway I'm done with this thread.....I wish you luck in the future, and God bless and keep you and your family safe even if you don't believe in him or her.
Suspended Profile
BTW way I was enjoying the professional aspect of this conversation up until you decided to insult me.
SSG Kevin McCulley
There is a tremendous difference between being trained to do something and actually doing it. Infantry platoon medics are E4 and below. Sure, your qualifications may be greater, but my operational experience outweighs yours. I've a 15 month tour under my belt during the worst part of the surge. I've had times where I was absolutely ALL my platoon had with no access to our PA or Surgeon. Everyone knows people who are certified to hell and back but cannot turn on a toaster. I would not presume to talk about management of a level 1 treatment facility or airborne medicine.. It isn't in my sphere of experience. Oh, and a note: Combat Medics only exist in maneuver battalions.. all others are healthcare specialists.
Even in my second MOS of Public Affairs Broadcast Specialist: I'm trained as an AFN DJ, yet have never filled the billet and thus do not weigh in on those matters. The field and the school are radically different. I've worked in joint assignments and my last two supervisors and dept NCOIC were all fantastic Air Force NCOs, some of the highest quality leaders I've ever served with.. and we all knew when to defer to the other branch's expertise.
The Army's supply system is irrelevant if we get in a situation where we have neither Air Superiority nor freedom of movement for logpacs. We won't always be fighting people from the 7th century. You must ALWAYS be prepared for all contingencies. To quote my father, a 21 year veteran, Green Beret, and 3 time Vietnam vet, "It is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." You have to look at what happens when someone suddenly 'doesn't have it.' Is that a value positive or negative to the combat effectiveness of the unit?
Even in my second MOS of Public Affairs Broadcast Specialist: I'm trained as an AFN DJ, yet have never filled the billet and thus do not weigh in on those matters. The field and the school are radically different. I've worked in joint assignments and my last two supervisors and dept NCOIC were all fantastic Air Force NCOs, some of the highest quality leaders I've ever served with.. and we all knew when to defer to the other branch's expertise.
The Army's supply system is irrelevant if we get in a situation where we have neither Air Superiority nor freedom of movement for logpacs. We won't always be fighting people from the 7th century. You must ALWAYS be prepared for all contingencies. To quote my father, a 21 year veteran, Green Beret, and 3 time Vietnam vet, "It is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." You have to look at what happens when someone suddenly 'doesn't have it.' Is that a value positive or negative to the combat effectiveness of the unit?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Just like anything else, if this gets implemented, the process will take about five to ten years to iron itself out with many changes to policies and procedures throughout that period. During that period we will need to determine if this has been good for the Military or a real bad idea.
For me, I don't like the idea but I am not a decision maker. Just as long as these soldiers are identified by their Name and SSN, not their gender. I don't want the media spending a whole day of news time talking about the the first Transgender to be killed in action and everyone else gets no coverage at all.
For me, I don't like the idea but I am not a decision maker. Just as long as these soldiers are identified by their Name and SSN, not their gender. I don't want the media spending a whole day of news time talking about the the first Transgender to be killed in action and everyone else gets no coverage at all.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In professional sports we are already seeing trans women competitors. The sports world was hit with the transexual juggernaut several decades ago with Dr Renee Richards who had been a male surgeon and amateur tennis player. Richards was allowed to play in women's tennis.
Will trans "women" be held to female standards in PT? I've heard troops gripe about how different PT standards resulted in women getting more points for their E5 board and thus getting promoted in advance of the (often pudgy) gripers.
Just little bit of a hard time understanding the whole "openly transexual" verbiage. Why would you want to be open about it? Esp to folks who may not have known you in your prior life? Perhaps we can and will admit trannies in but require them to conduct themselves only as the gender they now claim. Since I think fewer and fewer installations have the notorious "gang showers" of Ft Ord or DLI it is likely going to be easier for trans troopers to come in via MEPS. However I still would recommend that those desiring gender reassignment not enter the military in the first place or else they would have to ETS to get it done to them.
Will trans "women" be held to female standards in PT? I've heard troops gripe about how different PT standards resulted in women getting more points for their E5 board and thus getting promoted in advance of the (often pudgy) gripers.
Just little bit of a hard time understanding the whole "openly transexual" verbiage. Why would you want to be open about it? Esp to folks who may not have known you in your prior life? Perhaps we can and will admit trannies in but require them to conduct themselves only as the gender they now claim. Since I think fewer and fewer installations have the notorious "gang showers" of Ft Ord or DLI it is likely going to be easier for trans troopers to come in via MEPS. However I still would recommend that those desiring gender reassignment not enter the military in the first place or else they would have to ETS to get it done to them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Great, the Palm Center report found "Military Services Have Failed To Comply With New Defense Department Rules On Transgender Personnel." In a soon to be released report from the Sand Center, entitled: "Palm Center Has Failed Service Members and American Public with Their Political Bias and Gender Based Agenda" The report finds that the Palm Center is a bunch of hacks and no more right to comment than a random retired MSG? The Sand Center report also ask the question about why would anyone without an agend even present this information? You can make something look official, post it on the internet but that does not make it anything but a pile of...words. Military Service have NOT failed to comply with any new rules and are only following long standing medical standards.
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
SGT Luke Fouquier
The published medical literature does not matter in the bigger picture. The medical standard are the medical standards. AR 40-501 is that standard. IF you don't like the standards, to bad. If someone wants to try to change the standards, there is a process. The change in published medical literature may go toward supporting changes to AR 40-501 BUT that is the standard.
I don't want or need you to bow down to me but I was interested in reading more about some of the things you were stating.
The published medical literature does not matter in the bigger picture. The medical standard are the medical standards. AR 40-501 is that standard. IF you don't like the standards, to bad. If someone wants to try to change the standards, there is a process. The change in published medical literature may go toward supporting changes to AR 40-501 BUT that is the standard.
I don't want or need you to bow down to me but I was interested in reading more about some of the things you were stating.
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
SGT Luke Fouquier
I don't actually think that the medical standard should be updated because the APA puts out a new addition. I also think if you looked at the medical standard, you would find that most, if not all people in this discussion would still be disqualified for medical reason, I.E. anxiety, depression are in an of themselves medical disqualification.
In truth, I never cared what a person did when they were off duty as long as it didn't bleed over into their duty performance. This discussion, by its very nature, crosses that line.
I don't actually think that the medical standard should be updated because the APA puts out a new addition. I also think if you looked at the medical standard, you would find that most, if not all people in this discussion would still be disqualified for medical reason, I.E. anxiety, depression are in an of themselves medical disqualification.
In truth, I never cared what a person did when they were off duty as long as it didn't bleed over into their duty performance. This discussion, by its very nature, crosses that line.
(0)
(0)
SSG Stephen Arnold
Gender Dysphoria is nothing more than a new name for Gender Identity Disorder.
The ApA found a way to continue billing for it without the "stigma". Silliness.
Don't mistake DSM updates for research based decision making. Much of what changes in the DSM is due to a vote of the revision committee. Sure, there is consideration for research, but don't believe that it is a purely scientific approach.
The ApA found a way to continue billing for it without the "stigma". Silliness.
Don't mistake DSM updates for research based decision making. Much of what changes in the DSM is due to a vote of the revision committee. Sure, there is consideration for research, but don't believe that it is a purely scientific approach.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MSG Brad Sand - Master Sergeant; Your point about "simultaneous dis-qualifiers" is valid - PROVIDED that you factor in that a proportion of the "anxiety" and "depression" is a direct result of living under the cloud of prejudice and potential adverse effects which could be inflicted on them because of their condition regardless of their performance.
In short, "Homosexuals are a security risk because they can be blackmailed due to their homosexuality." is 100% true PROVIDED they are living in a milieu wherein homosexuals stand a high risk of adverse consequences if their homosexuality is revealed (and is 100% false if they are living in a milieu wherein homosexuals stand a zero risk of adverse consequences if their homosexuality is revealed).
In short, "Homosexuals are a security risk because they can be blackmailed due to their homosexuality." is 100% true PROVIDED they are living in a milieu wherein homosexuals stand a high risk of adverse consequences if their homosexuality is revealed (and is 100% false if they are living in a milieu wherein homosexuals stand a zero risk of adverse consequences if their homosexuality is revealed).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I will get behind this once the military no longer discriminates against me due to my desire to copulate with baboons.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPO Terry McKenna Chief; I did some quick research and you can breath a sigh of relief.
The military is NOT allowed to discriminate against you because of your desire to copulate with baboons.
The military IS however allowed to disciple you if you actually do it.
The military is NOT allowed to discriminate against you because of your desire to copulate with baboons.
The military IS however allowed to disciple you if you actually do it.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google