Posted on Jan 26, 2015
When, Not If, Will We See Open Transgender Military Service?
94.3K
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 In the end, those arguments didn't work and DADT was repealed.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
Suspended Profile
15 Oct 2018 .....hope i win
0
0
0
Let's talk about the contributions of our Transgender folks, shall we? Say, isn't Chelsea Manning currently serving?
... Oh, that's right. Chelsea is serving time!
... Oh, that's right. Chelsea is serving time!
(0)
(0)
MAJ Hugh Blanchard
As a retired Military Intelligence soldier, NCO and officer, that traitorous moron Manning, whatever "its" first name might be, infuriates me. "Manning" deliberately put our people at risk by leaking thousands of classified messages into the hands of that accused child molester Julian Assange at WikiLeaks. "Manning" is a traitor and an idiot, and should have been sentenced to a firing squad for treason in wartime.
I will also say that we cannot truthfully state that "Manning" is an example of the service of all LGBT people. I'm sure many of them serve and have served honorably. I just don't think we should be so concerned about each individual's sexual preference as an element of their military service. The only group that should concern every member of the DoD is their armed service team and its success in guarding the nation. The point of military service is defending the nation, NOT waving a flag and saying, "Look at me because I'm LGBT!" Do your job and keep your private life a private matter.
I will also say that we cannot truthfully state that "Manning" is an example of the service of all LGBT people. I'm sure many of them serve and have served honorably. I just don't think we should be so concerned about each individual's sexual preference as an element of their military service. The only group that should concern every member of the DoD is their armed service team and its success in guarding the nation. The point of military service is defending the nation, NOT waving a flag and saying, "Look at me because I'm LGBT!" Do your job and keep your private life a private matter.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
When is now. But of course there are difficulties of acceptance by the rank and file, and the chain of command. Why it is not as open as some desire, is that the ones that are trying to actually make it work are not radically calling attention to themselves through the major media or the LGBT major political support groups.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
PO1 Autumn Sandeen, there is one serving already, but to answer your question this will only happen when the men find their cojones, cause they are afraid.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
You know this is something that bothers me. It bothers me not because I have a phobia or prejudice. It bothers me because I believe that we (soldiers) past, present, future are one. By that I mean we should fight and act as one not give reason for division. We are not black, white, red, gay, straight, tall, short..... we are one.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
The answer is when, which will be soon, I truly expect to see it in my lifetime.
I was introduced to the concept back in 1974...The Forever War by Joe Haldeman.
I recommend this as a good read and a lessons learned for the future of combat, weapons, tactics, training, and integration.
I was introduced to the concept back in 1974...The Forever War by Joe Haldeman.
I recommend this as a good read and a lessons learned for the future of combat, weapons, tactics, training, and integration.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Does that mean the military will issue combat high heels, dresses and skirts for transgender and bring back feathered hats and helmets ..... or uniforms like the the three musketeers?
(0)
(0)
MAJ Hugh Blanchard
The Three Musketeers may have worn feathered hats, but they also were skilled sword fighters willing to die for their Queen. Given the contents of the book, I don't think that D'Artagnan nor any of the Three Musketeers were LGBTQ.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
So how would the military regulate it? If a biological male identifies as female, would he be issued women's uniforms, have to comply with female PT standards, grooming standards, and duty restrictions? Same goes for biological females who identify as male.
Or can they decide day by day what gender they're going to "be?"
This needs a lot of study and research done before it can be safely implemented. I for one am glad I am retired and won't have to deal with this. I can already see the headaches it's going to cause.
Or can they decide day by day what gender they're going to "be?"
This needs a lot of study and research done before it can be safely implemented. I for one am glad I am retired and won't have to deal with this. I can already see the headaches it's going to cause.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
All of this happy horse pucky started with the advent of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Call me a homophobic bigot if you must (I could care less because I certainly have no fear over homosexuals and if you want to be stupid enough to redefine the word phobia that's your bag), but I'm old school on this issue. I'm sick to death of our military being used as a platform for social experimentation. Granted, there has been at least one which has proven to be very successful and beneficial to everyone, which would be racial integration, but this LGBT stuff cannot touch racism. Personal preference regarding one's sexuality is grossly misplaced when it becomes such a major talking point for acceptability in the military ranks, especially when the military is being used as a springboard of sorts. What you do and who you choose to do it with in your off-duty time is strictly your business and I care nothing about hearing about it...so get out of my face with it. The trans-gender thing only adds another neon sign to the matter. If you feel you need to have your plumbing re-worked, that is your problem and nobody else's, but if you cannot be happy with the natural identity you were born with, that used to be considered a sign of extreme psychological issues which there is really no place for in the military fighting force. If you are THAT unstable, I don't want the military to allow you to sling arms with a rifle or carry a side arm because you are freakin' out of your mind.
Sorry if that offends you and hurts your feelings and you now think I'm a hateful nutcase for my opinion on the matter...but hey, last time I checked this was still the land of the free and the home of the brave where we are allowed to freely express our views and opinions without impunity. You've been expressing YOURS quite loud and clear and I happen to be in disagreement with much of what you have to say on the subject and I'm sick of hearing about it while not feeling at liberty to speak-out due to this garbage commonly referred to as Political Correctness...and so I've said my piece, so it is now up to you to just deal with it because it is my right. HOOOAAAHHH!!!
Sorry if that offends you and hurts your feelings and you now think I'm a hateful nutcase for my opinion on the matter...but hey, last time I checked this was still the land of the free and the home of the brave where we are allowed to freely express our views and opinions without impunity. You've been expressing YOURS quite loud and clear and I happen to be in disagreement with much of what you have to say on the subject and I'm sick of hearing about it while not feeling at liberty to speak-out due to this garbage commonly referred to as Political Correctness...and so I've said my piece, so it is now up to you to just deal with it because it is my right. HOOOAAAHHH!!!
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW4 Larry Curtis - Mr. Curtis; If you look at the lengthy history of homosexuals (per se) being banned from serving in the US military you will find your search coming to a screeching halt in the mid 1950s.
Why were homosexuals banned from the US military?
Because they were a security risk.
Why were they a security risk?
Because being exposed as a homosexual could get you booted out of the US military.
Why did people first get the idea that homosexuals were a security risk?
When they first noticed that some of the educated upper-class people who had been selling defence information to people who had the same economic views as they did - but who weren't from the same country were homosexuals.
"Obviously" you couldn't ban people from the military for being "educated". "Obviously" you couldn't ban people from the military for being "upper-class". "Obviously" you couldn't admit that anyone from your country could possibly believe in a different economic system than you did.
So there was only one "logical" thing to do and that was to ban homosexuals (per se) from the US military and that meant that you completely eliminated any security threat that might arise from someone being threatened with exposure for being a homosexual.
There, doesn't that make a lot of sense?
As far as the "transgendered" are concerned, once they have completed their course of therapy/treatment and their condition is stabilized to the point where their need for continuing medical support is no higher than someone with insulin dependent diabetes is - of course they should be allowed to serve - on exactly the same terms as someone who has insulin dependent diabetes.
Why were homosexuals banned from the US military?
Because they were a security risk.
Why were they a security risk?
Because being exposed as a homosexual could get you booted out of the US military.
Why did people first get the idea that homosexuals were a security risk?
When they first noticed that some of the educated upper-class people who had been selling defence information to people who had the same economic views as they did - but who weren't from the same country were homosexuals.
"Obviously" you couldn't ban people from the military for being "educated". "Obviously" you couldn't ban people from the military for being "upper-class". "Obviously" you couldn't admit that anyone from your country could possibly believe in a different economic system than you did.
So there was only one "logical" thing to do and that was to ban homosexuals (per se) from the US military and that meant that you completely eliminated any security threat that might arise from someone being threatened with exposure for being a homosexual.
There, doesn't that make a lot of sense?
As far as the "transgendered" are concerned, once they have completed their course of therapy/treatment and their condition is stabilized to the point where their need for continuing medical support is no higher than someone with insulin dependent diabetes is - of course they should be allowed to serve - on exactly the same terms as someone who has insulin dependent diabetes.
(2)
(0)
CW4 Larry Curtis
COL Ted Mc I do not have a problem with gays in the military...I have served with several during the time it was supposedly taboo enough to have you get the boot. However, those with whom I served also served with distinction to the point that they were accepted all the way up the chain due to their performance. I have it from who I consider a reliable source that even one of our top Generals at one point was gay. That I do not have a problem with so much. But now we are looking down the barrel of another aspect, which again I'm not so totally at odds with, but am just really sick of the subject being thrown in the face a lot. And if you say even the smallest thing about being in disagreement you get a special tag called "BIGOT". Sorry, I just re-read my post above and I was clearly agitated over something else when I wrote it and I've put the whole thing out of my mind already and really have no desire to back-track to find it. I'm doing my best to be in the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" mode these days because it seems like the clock has really taken to accelerating lately and I don't want to miss a thing because I'm ticked-off. ;) Thank you for your reply to my comment, Sir. Thank you for your service and leadership.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW4 Larry Curtis - Mr. Curtis; I suspect that you and I are in agreement that a lot of the "problem" would be solved by opening up a #10 can of "ShutUpAnd Soldier".
If that doesn't work, I can get it for you in 50 gal. drums.
If that doesn't work, I can get it for you in 50 gal. drums.
(3)
(0)
CW4 Larry Curtis
I may require 2 50 gallon drums. LOLOL. But you are correct. We cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from doing our jobs, but at the same time those who are creating the distractions could use some of that "ShutUpAndSoldier" as well. We must maintain our vigilance or the camp could be overrun...
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I have to wonder about the relevance of LGBT wanting to remove the "T" and let it stand alone on its' own definition. The following link is from the UK but if you are really interested in understanding their thought process it's pure gold. (I like it because even the posts that are banned are still mainly visible ) http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.354043-Transexuality-needs-to-be-removed-from-LGBT
I am seeing the same sentiment in the U.S. Though I don't understand any of the groups mentality I am really confused as to why the Transgender group wants to be separate from the LGB Group.
NOTE: I don't know why I am even posting this except it seems to a topic of great interest.
I am seeing the same sentiment in the U.S. Though I don't understand any of the groups mentality I am really confused as to why the Transgender group wants to be separate from the LGB Group.
NOTE: I don't know why I am even posting this except it seems to a topic of great interest.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
Reckon I did post on the original comment, how do you move it there... did you win