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 In the end, those arguments didn't work and DADT was repealed.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
2
2
0
I hope that we don't fall down this slippery slope. Why do the need to be recognized beyond who they are.......a soldier. Not a gay soldier, not a lesbian soldier, not a straight soldier, but just a proud member of the armed forces of which they served.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
It's a matter of policy, and "accommodation."
What accommodations will be granted, and how will policy reflect it.
That's really it.
The military will most likely say "birth gender" is all that matters for "regulatory standards" such as Physical Fitness, Grooming, and Uniform Guidelines. Once that is established, it doesn't matter.
Now that said, requests for additional accommodations, like longer hair, or earrings or modified weight standards, or PT standards, are where things are going to get weird.
What accommodations will be granted, and how will policy reflect it.
That's really it.
The military will most likely say "birth gender" is all that matters for "regulatory standards" such as Physical Fitness, Grooming, and Uniform Guidelines. Once that is established, it doesn't matter.
Now that said, requests for additional accommodations, like longer hair, or earrings or modified weight standards, or PT standards, are where things are going to get weird.
(2)
(0)
SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham
Hmmm... similar issue in the Olympics for transgenders. How can they "fairly" compete? I know many women that are fierce warriors and men that can't even ball up a fist. Their gender has nothing to do with their desire to serve in the military.
However, accommodation IS the significant problem. To remain a UNIFORM service we must consider how each unique individual will be evaluated and incorporated into the unit. It is NOT an easy task and will take time and LOTS of consideration.
Good points, Sgt Kennedy.
However, accommodation IS the significant problem. To remain a UNIFORM service we must consider how each unique individual will be evaluated and incorporated into the unit. It is NOT an easy task and will take time and LOTS of consideration.
Good points, Sgt Kennedy.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Bigham, exactly so. This isn't me trying to be Anti or Pro Trans. My first words on the topic were:
"It's a matter of policy, and "accommodation.""
The complexity of this subject is "Movement Level." All I am doing is point out concerns that will exist, much like when we started integrating females into all roles & jobs.
As it stands, the Marine Corps has had little success with women in the Infantry Officers Course, because of the physical requirements. The Army is opening up Rangers Course, and we will see how the first batch fairs. But the Physical Standards is a concern.
I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed in either of those courses. Far from it. But should "accommodations" be made so that they are "more" gender neutral? No. When they were created, they were gender neutral, and the introduction of females into the services is what is causing the shift.
Transgender personnel policies has similar parallels because it deals with similar gender issues.
"It's a matter of policy, and "accommodation.""
The complexity of this subject is "Movement Level." All I am doing is point out concerns that will exist, much like when we started integrating females into all roles & jobs.
As it stands, the Marine Corps has had little success with women in the Infantry Officers Course, because of the physical requirements. The Army is opening up Rangers Course, and we will see how the first batch fairs. But the Physical Standards is a concern.
I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed in either of those courses. Far from it. But should "accommodations" be made so that they are "more" gender neutral? No. When they were created, they were gender neutral, and the introduction of females into the services is what is causing the shift.
Transgender personnel policies has similar parallels because it deals with similar gender issues.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
That's the thing, the schools weren't for one gender and one gender only "as designed."
The requirements were set at a level to estimate conditions in the field.
Physical Fitness tests are just 'normalized' standards so everyone can be tested using the same baseline, and scored evenly. We know that women as a group are slower than men as a group. The USMC estimates on a 3 mile run that ends up being about 3 minutes total. We know that women don't have the same upper body strength. The USMC has used the flex arm hang instead of the pull-up. These are both to "normalize" the tests.
The tests are only used as a means of comparing groups of people. Both large groups of people, and individuals.
When we talk about potential transgender members, we have determine which group they will be compared to. That is the crux of the issue. That's where "policy" comes into play.
"Accommodation" is deviations from standard. Whatever that standard may be. There is not necessarily anything wrong with accommodation as long as it doesn't adversely affect the readiness of the forces or the mission as a whole. But each and every accommodation must be researched before it becomes standard policy.
The requirements were set at a level to estimate conditions in the field.
Physical Fitness tests are just 'normalized' standards so everyone can be tested using the same baseline, and scored evenly. We know that women as a group are slower than men as a group. The USMC estimates on a 3 mile run that ends up being about 3 minutes total. We know that women don't have the same upper body strength. The USMC has used the flex arm hang instead of the pull-up. These are both to "normalize" the tests.
The tests are only used as a means of comparing groups of people. Both large groups of people, and individuals.
When we talk about potential transgender members, we have determine which group they will be compared to. That is the crux of the issue. That's where "policy" comes into play.
"Accommodation" is deviations from standard. Whatever that standard may be. There is not necessarily anything wrong with accommodation as long as it doesn't adversely affect the readiness of the forces or the mission as a whole. But each and every accommodation must be researched before it becomes standard policy.
(0)
(0)
CW4 Larry Curtis
I think the fact that we are even having this discussion at all is a pretty good indicator that things have already become weird. It's not a matter of things getting weird, we have already arrived at that juncture.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Transgenderism is a mental disorder. It reflects a mental condition. This is detrimental to good order and stability within the military. Pretending it's not a problem is ignoring the truth. I do not hate mentally ill people. I do not wish bad things on mentally ill people. But ignoring the problem, and enabling their dysphoria, only makes the problem worse. It is the same as being an enabler for a drunk and/or drug addict.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
When, not if, will we see an open military service to bestial polygamist, satinist and pantheist nilists?
Military service first requires eligibility (age, citizenship, morals) and so if eligible, then requires high standards of physical and mental ability, commitment to the service member's creed and sworn allegiance to duty, honor and country. Military service is NOT a forum for the open expression of individuality and separatism. Military service is NOT an institution for social engineering and social experimentation. Service members are free to harbor any personal belief or conviction they wish, providing it does not interfere with the above standards.
Military service first requires eligibility (age, citizenship, morals) and so if eligible, then requires high standards of physical and mental ability, commitment to the service member's creed and sworn allegiance to duty, honor and country. Military service is NOT a forum for the open expression of individuality and separatism. Military service is NOT an institution for social engineering and social experimentation. Service members are free to harbor any personal belief or conviction they wish, providing it does not interfere with the above standards.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Ahh the same words spoken to keep blacks out, women out gays out and now Trans individuals out.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I guess I'll put in my 2 cents. Although I personally don't agree that transgender people can serve properly and due to all the medical "care" they need, they damned sure can't deploy to a combat zone, and openly gay and/or "transgender" behavior while on duty or in uniform I personally feel detracts from the mission, and makes us look weak and distracted. I believe the "Don't ask don't tell" policy was OK for homosexuals and was the best compromize any of them could have hoped for, and I wish it was still in place. Regardless of ANYONE'S personal gender "BS", I hate having ANYONE'S sexuality shoved in my face- I don't care what you choose to call yourself! And although I agree with most of the people commenting here, I sure wish some of you would stop politicizing EVERYTHING, as I do not believe that everything someone doesn't like or agree with is some kind of political conspiracy. Back in my day, we neither asked nor cared what political party someone supported. All that mattered was the mission. I sure wish we could get back to a civilized tone with one another. Not everything someone doesn't like is "from the liberals" or "from the conservatives"! Jeez, dear God, give us some relief from all these distractions that have nothing to do with the mission!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I'm more than happy to return your 2 cents if you want it back. But lets be honest here its your behavior you push and demands to be normalized not that of the LGBT community. It's you straight people who molest and rape women not us just you straight folks. As someone who went TDY quite often it was E7's and E-8's who couldn't wait to get away so they could hook up with people other than their wives. So called upstanding NCO's and Officers cheating on their wives and constantly drunk.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
[~1750248: SGT (Join to see): So according tou you, all heterosexuals are rapists who cheat on their wives? Sure thing chief! You busted us all! Thanks for your service if you actually had time from your busy activist schedule to contribute to the mission.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) Also when I say I don't want anyone's sexuality shioved in my face, I will say that I've never done more than hold my wife's hand in public, and I never even did that when in uniform, so my statement applies the same to heterosexuals as it does to all LGBTQ people in that respect. Have a great Veteran's Day.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It is none of my business who decides what they are. Man is a man. Woman was made from the rib of man, not from a surgical procedure. Sorry I am old school, call me a dinosaur if you wish, I will not be forced to accept something i do not want to, nor will I compromise my beliefs and faith. It doesn't take a brick wall to fall on me to see the evil one is at work now.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
As for your faith if a Christian Exodus 21-7 allows you to sell your daughter/s into slavery. There is also that rib thing as it was full of male DNA thus making Eve the First Trans woman.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I thought transgenders could already serve openly in American's military services. By the way, I've seen, in person, the photo at the beginning of this thread. It's located on the grounds of the California State Capitol. There's a second one that's placed on an obelisk in the Cathedral City, California Cemetery.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
First of all the commanders need to be honorable and stop allowing illegal separations on people that one of their TAC subordinates don't like to progress. Then we can worry about other stuff. As long as TACs are allowed to lie or put their own opinions on what "took place," everyone is in the same boat. Here is an example for you. A classmate lies and says that you went to her house over an exodus period and gave her things. Without any investigation the TAC parrots that to the commander who pushes it through to a separation. The classmate was in Kansas at the time of the exodus visiting her parents which you could not have known. You were in Georgia and have 7 witness statements handsigned to that effect. When you try and supply those statements you are told to "give them to your lawyer." Obviously you don't have a 'lawyer' because we all don't have reasons to have 'lawyers.' You demand a court martial, but are told "we don't have enough evidence to court martial you." Once those issues are taken care of we can worry about other, more specific reasons for termination such as gender or other personal issues. But right now with the commanders allowed to say anything and push it through regardless of the truth, no one is safe from separation.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google