Posted on Jan 26, 2015
When, Not If, Will We See Open Transgender Military Service?
94.1K
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 In the end, those arguments didn't work and DADT was repealed.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
There is ZERO PLACE in a Military environment, if that be operational, garrison, or other, for such things as this. Gender, sexual orientation, religion, politics… any of that have no meaning (or shouldn’t) in the context of any military service or environment. You aren’t there for “you”. You are serving “country”. You are there in service to “others”. Any policy that allows soldiers to grow beards, be openly homosexual, be openly transsexual or any of that horseshit creates nothing but a liability!
Who do you want to be at your side in combat? Someone who is selfish enough to spend their time and energy “expressing” themselves openly to affect social changes? Or someone that signed up to serve their country, and “expresses” themselves in their free time? It’s a simple psychological profile that you can apply to 99 percent of the idiots running around these days. The secret is that nobody cares. Just do your job. People start caring when you throw issues that make them uncomfortable in their faces. And they get annoyed, and that creates derision and resentment. It’s not rocket science.
Who do you want to be at your side in combat? Someone who is selfish enough to spend their time and energy “expressing” themselves openly to affect social changes? Or someone that signed up to serve their country, and “expresses” themselves in their free time? It’s a simple psychological profile that you can apply to 99 percent of the idiots running around these days. The secret is that nobody cares. Just do your job. People start caring when you throw issues that make them uncomfortable in their faces. And they get annoyed, and that creates derision and resentment. It’s not rocket science.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The real issue is combat effectiveness and deployable. If that decreases its a bad idea. We are now sacrificing combat effectiveness to social engineering. If the argument is "people said this during racial integration and when women were allowed into the military." That is a false argument because race has much less impact than sexual integration. Combat units with women are less effective than all male units, they also have a bigger logistics trail, poorer deployable due to pregnancy and other sexual issues. Now you throw in gender sisphoria and other mental health issues that come along with it, plus the hormones , infections, and complications associated with reassignment surgeries. How is that soldier going to be ready to deploy? They can't, they have too much dissonance in their mind to focus on keeping their teammates alive and mission Focused. The military is not for everyone. We have loads of discriminatory policies on the books, this is not one that should be changed. How does this make the team better?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
People who have undergone this surgery require care for life. If done while in on active duty they are out on con leave and profiled for years.Meanwhile the individuals unit must carry him on the rolls. One less person. PL,PSG, and Sl must deal with this daily. Not to mention the drag on morale. This person would almost certainly have daily medical appointments. At ETS they would belong to the VA most likely getting 100% disability. IMO not with the trouble.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Who cares. I disapprove of people or servicemembers attempting to define themselves by such a narrow measure. You are a human being first and then ever so often (for about 5 to 7 minutes) your sexual self comes to the fore.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
never I pray
0
0
0
I personally don't give a damn. If you are willing to step up and risk your life with the rest of us, welcome aboard.
(0)
(0)
1
0
1
SFC (Join to see)
SSG Billy Claggett: I think you may have forgotten the comma after the word "Never", and you might be confusing people as to where you stand.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Jesus Christ can we stick to training for War and not woke bullshit!
1
0
1
Anyone who is too confused to know what sex they are doesn't need to be in the military with weapons.
(1)
(1)
0
0
0
If the Americans With Disabilities Act and U.S Constitution had been followed there would never have been such a thing as "Transgender" or "transgender" service.
In the last three decades since declaring Transsexuals and Transvestites as not disabled neither party has done anything to support that idea and especially not Democrats!!!!!!!
The voting record and adoption of the umbrella term transgender and subsequent attachment to the LGB supports me in saying Democrats are openly transphobic as are transgender activist such as yourself!!!
Without being able to "include" people without their consent activist like you would be nothing!
Let's start calling the lgbt what it is! The Democrats favorite outpatient civil commitment group and subversion of the U.S Constitution!
It's time for the return of the "Transsexual" separatist!! Accept this time it's going to be real!!
In the last three decades since declaring Transsexuals and Transvestites as not disabled neither party has done anything to support that idea and especially not Democrats!!!!!!!
The voting record and adoption of the umbrella term transgender and subsequent attachment to the LGB supports me in saying Democrats are openly transphobic as are transgender activist such as yourself!!!
Without being able to "include" people without their consent activist like you would be nothing!
Let's start calling the lgbt what it is! The Democrats favorite outpatient civil commitment group and subversion of the U.S Constitution!
It's time for the return of the "Transsexual" separatist!! Accept this time it's going to be real!!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google