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 In the end, those arguments didn't work and DADT was repealed.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
6
6
0
It seems to me that all of the various labels they are assigning to people, ie: African American, Gay, Transgender, Christian, Jew, Muslim. and any other you can think of, is just another way for THEM to divide us. I realize I'm not answering the question but, does anybody think we can advance as a species if we keep allowing the powers that be, divide and separate us from each other?
(6)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
My question is, will you get UCMJ'ed for using the wrong pronoun when talking about your commander?
...but I'm totally trolling.
...but I'm totally trolling.
(1)
(0)
SPC Matt Ovaska
I guess if you were born in Africa like Obama and you would like to be recognized as African American. No problem. Most black folks were born in American. I call them Americans. We don't call folks Mexican Americans. Why do we label black folks? I served with some fine American soldiers from Harlem. Made some good friends.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Not just speaking on transgender individuals but will the Army go to one standard as far as APFT for all, and what about AR 600-9? Which body composition will be used? Will there be just one?
(6)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
That is a significant number, I would like to know where you got those numbers from and what are the make up of this number and has it been validated. Do you have a link or something? With that being said, I don't know how I feel about the whole changing the rules thing because the Army/military didn't force those individuals to join, it's still an all-volunteer force so these individuals should know what they were getting into rather than having the military to conform to these individuals/groups. Just my two cents.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Lieutenant; A good question, but possibly with too narrow a perspective.
There should be a "base line" physical fitness standard for EVERYONE in the military and IN ADDITION to that there should be physical fitness standards (based on actual, demonstrable, reasonably likely to be encountered tasks) for every job in the military. [PLEASE NOTE - I am specifically NOT designating what the "base line" standard should be and I am well aware that a lot of the "individual job standards" would be identical to each other (and some of them might even be the same as the "base line" standards).]
There should be a "base line" physical fitness standard for EVERYONE in the military and IN ADDITION to that there should be physical fitness standards (based on actual, demonstrable, reasonably likely to be encountered tasks) for every job in the military. [PLEASE NOTE - I am specifically NOT designating what the "base line" standard should be and I am well aware that a lot of the "individual job standards" would be identical to each other (and some of them might even be the same as the "base line" standards).]
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
WELL, Vlad & Islam want to kill them, so they might want to defend their right to live
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
TRANSGENDER? It can't be done, it is an XX / XY world, everything else is an elaborate costume. The military is no place for nonsense. If you have medical complications that prevent you from doing your full duty you should be out.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
If you want to pretend you are something you are not, don’t expect all others to pretend you are something you are not!
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
What happened to just being a veteran?----When did we become white, black, gay, lesbian and transsexual? Is there something wrong with being---just a veteran? Why does someone need a special designation to single themselves out from the rest of us? Are they special???What makes them better than the rest of us?
(5)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
They want that "special designation," as you call it, for special, i.e., protected status and promotion advantage; not to mention free medical as in reassignment surgery. The later takes, at minimum, two YEARS of treatment and rehab meaning a medical profile and being USELESS to their deploying unit.
It's political correctness run amok.
It's political correctness run amok.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Hi Patrick. You and I are agreeing----an island----in a vast sea of disagreement. Bless you!
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I am going to refuse to answer here because my BIGOTED, NARROW MIND will get in trouble as I am told.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
I'm not going to say much about this topic this time... I'm trans and have already decided to separate and I'll be done in a few weeks. The military has been great and I'm thankful for everything that it has provided for me but it's time to move on. I do feel that this policy needs to change and transgendered people should be allowed to serve openly. You do not have to agree with it but you should at the very least have enough respect for your fellow service men and women to at least refer to them using proper pro-nouns. If you cannot do that, then it's you who shouldn't be in the military.
(5)
(0)
SSgt Nicole Biscoe
I posted this 10 months back and things are already starting to change. I have a few friends who have had ETPs (Exception To Policy) letters approved and I think we should see things changed soon... I'm really proud of our military! :)
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Yes, it will happen soon America is an open society it is just a matter of time like everything else changing times bring on change to everything in life.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Going through a transgender process is a deeply personal decision. Above all, it is a very expensive decision. Do the research. There is quite a bit of time in preparation, hormone therapies, etc. Then there is the surgery. Then a long period of recovery and perhaps more reconstructive surgery if the original has a blowout.
All of this comes at a cost. How much, I cannot say. But let's look at it from the terms of a unit alone. Multiple counseling sessions to determine that this is indeed the path the member wants to take. Multiple surgeries to effect the change.. A long convalescence period.
Afterwards comes the repercussions of individual perception. Members of the opposite sex may not be comfortable with Betty or Billy suddenly switching locker rooms. Members of the same sex may not be comfortable relating to the person who just had their plumbing changed. Yet the military will not implode once again, as I have seen argued, because each member who has a negative opinion will be threatened into silence by bad performance evals and promotion pass overs. Yeah, everyone knows how it really works. You are not entitled to an opinion unless the opinion is in line with policy. Deviate at your own risk.
Then there is still the problem of expense. I am fairly certain that if put to a majority vote, John Q. Public would not be in favor of funding sex reassignment for the military.
I can see the recruitment campaign now though... "Ever thought you were born in the wrong body? Joined the Armed Forces for a great career, education opportunities and free gender reassignment!"
All of this comes at a cost. How much, I cannot say. But let's look at it from the terms of a unit alone. Multiple counseling sessions to determine that this is indeed the path the member wants to take. Multiple surgeries to effect the change.. A long convalescence period.
Afterwards comes the repercussions of individual perception. Members of the opposite sex may not be comfortable with Betty or Billy suddenly switching locker rooms. Members of the same sex may not be comfortable relating to the person who just had their plumbing changed. Yet the military will not implode once again, as I have seen argued, because each member who has a negative opinion will be threatened into silence by bad performance evals and promotion pass overs. Yeah, everyone knows how it really works. You are not entitled to an opinion unless the opinion is in line with policy. Deviate at your own risk.
Then there is still the problem of expense. I am fairly certain that if put to a majority vote, John Q. Public would not be in favor of funding sex reassignment for the military.
I can see the recruitment campaign now though... "Ever thought you were born in the wrong body? Joined the Armed Forces for a great career, education opportunities and free gender reassignment!"
(5)
(0)
SSgt Nicole Biscoe
If funding is an issue, I question what is more expensive. For instance, I'm an individual with a clearance and the military has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to both train me and also maintain my clearance. I think it would be far cheaper to keep me as a trans person than lose my experience and motivation completely. But then again, we never do things that make sense anyway :)
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Jack S. - Sergeant; I think that we have to differentiate between those who joined the military with no expectation that their gender reassignment therapy would be paid for by the military because "transgendered" people simply weren't allowed to serve openly and they would be discharged if they "came out" and who now find that the situation has changed and they are allowed to serve openly [Group 1] AND those who join the military AFTER the change happens [Group 2].
For Group 1, the economic argument of cost of therapy vs. cost of training replacement/loss comes into play (and could possibly be a strong justification for paying for the gender reassignment therapy for CURRENTLY SERVING members.
For Group 2, the same economic agrument does not come into play since "uncompleted gender reassignment therapy" could be a disqualifier and anyone who didn't disclose their condition at the time of enlistment could be discharged for "fraudulent enlistment" while anyone who wasn't aware of their condition at the time of enlistment could be released due to a "previously existing medical condition that would have prevented enlistment had it been known at the time of enlistment but which will permit re-enlistment without loss of rank or seniority once corrective therapy has been completed provided that such completion is within __[fill in the blank]__ months of the date of release".
For Group 1, the economic argument of cost of therapy vs. cost of training replacement/loss comes into play (and could possibly be a strong justification for paying for the gender reassignment therapy for CURRENTLY SERVING members.
For Group 2, the same economic agrument does not come into play since "uncompleted gender reassignment therapy" could be a disqualifier and anyone who didn't disclose their condition at the time of enlistment could be discharged for "fraudulent enlistment" while anyone who wasn't aware of their condition at the time of enlistment could be released due to a "previously existing medical condition that would have prevented enlistment had it been known at the time of enlistment but which will permit re-enlistment without loss of rank or seniority once corrective therapy has been completed provided that such completion is within __[fill in the blank]__ months of the date of release".
(0)
(0)
SGT Timothy Brown
Is it correct that soldiers on hormone therapy are now non-deployable? That seems like it could become a major issue depending on their mos?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google