Posted on Jan 26, 2015
When, Not If, Will We See Open Transgender Military Service?
92.2K
1.27K
542
85
81
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 In the end, those arguments didn't work and DADT was repealed.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?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 155
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
I don't care what your sexuality is. I don't care what your politics are. I don't care what religion you practice. I don't want people shoving all of it in my face all the time. Hi!, I'm Mark and I am a republican, heterosexual Christian. Hi! I'm Mark and I am a republican, heterosexual Christian. Hi! I'm Mark and I am a republican, heterosexual, Christian. Good for me. Good for you. Hi! I'm Mark and I am a proud American service member. One team...one fight!, but quit ramming all your individuality down my throat. Be proud of being an American where you are free. Now pick up your weapon and follow me!
(137)
Comment
(1)
SSG Roger Ayscue
3 mo
SPC Zoe Jane Halo - the problem is that in order to maintain the appearance of the identified gender, regular interventional medical treatment is required. This treatment is expensive, takes the soldier away from training and can make the soldier non-deployable. Soldiers are separated every day for development of conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, or the inability to maintain BMI standards due to service-connected injury. These soldiers also want to serve, but their medical conditions preclude this. Gender Dysphoria falls into this category.
The "Throwing it in the face" may not be the same sex couple holding hands, but a "Drag Show" attended by children is. Book readings for children by individuals in drag is. Teachers flying Pride Flags is. Installations openly celebrating the sexual proclivities of individuals and individual lifestyles is. Just as some feel that ethnic and regional flags displayed are improper and not allowed, a pride flag should also not be displayed in any official capacity nor openly in any government office, school, or facility.
No person should receive protected or preferential status based upon race, sex, gender identity, national origin, or who they choose to copulate with.
The "Throwing it in the face" may not be the same sex couple holding hands, but a "Drag Show" attended by children is. Book readings for children by individuals in drag is. Teachers flying Pride Flags is. Installations openly celebrating the sexual proclivities of individuals and individual lifestyles is. Just as some feel that ethnic and regional flags displayed are improper and not allowed, a pride flag should also not be displayed in any official capacity nor openly in any government office, school, or facility.
No person should receive protected or preferential status based upon race, sex, gender identity, national origin, or who they choose to copulate with.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SrA Cecelia Eareckson
1 mo
PO1 Todd McMillin - Name one other palpably false claim that is humored in like fashion? BTW, the very little research done on the subject before slice, dice, and inject became standard tx showed a failure to bond with the same sex parent. Also BTW, I have friends who are afflicted with this idea, and it is painful to see. Concern is not hate.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SCPO Lonny Randolph
1 mo
PO1 Todd McMillin - The SFC's comment is neither hateful or bigoted. He is simply stating he would just as soon NOT have someone else's sexuality or gender identification crammed in his face. Apparently you feel otherwise; regardless, his comment did not warrant the litany of nonsense you just posted. Perhaps YOU are the one who is having a problem here.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SrA Cecelia Eareckson
24 d
SrA Hilbert Steiner - There was an interval when USAF E-4 was split between SrA and Sgt. The former, like myself in 1979, were only planning to serve one term. The latter were expecting to re-up.
(0)
Reply
(0)
I thought that veterans preferred to be recognized, because of their heroic actions not because of their sexual preference or identity. I personally do not care about a persons sex life, but if you must remind me over and over then I guess is all that I will remember about you. I assuming the argument is rater or not taxpayer money should be spent on sex change operations for service members. Is it basic and essential to military efficiency or is it a cosmetic operation.
(90)
Comment
(1)
SSG Bill McCoy
9 mo
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney - Good philosophy! Sort of like, "I'll try anything, once; more if I enjoy it and survive!"
(1)
Reply
(0)
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney
9 mo
SSG Bill McCoy - ..
Life Is Filled With Opportunities; Everything From Business To Fun.
If You Don't Take Advantage Of Them, You'll Never Have Lived Your Life.
As Was Stated On The Movie "Aunti Mame",
"Life Is A Banquette And Most Poor Suckers Are Starving To Death".
~~ And THAT'S An Unfortunate Truth ~~
Life Is Filled With Opportunities; Everything From Business To Fun.
If You Don't Take Advantage Of Them, You'll Never Have Lived Your Life.
As Was Stated On The Movie "Aunti Mame",
"Life Is A Banquette And Most Poor Suckers Are Starving To Death".
~~ And THAT'S An Unfortunate Truth ~~
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
6 mo
Sgt Alex Bane - There is a difference between a "true" deformity, and an individuals skewed self-image. However my opinion is no more valid than everyone else's.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Brian Jarvi
5 mo
The problem with sex change operations are that the people are not deployable. The whole thing has on going medical problems and hormone therapy. There was times when we had no food or water and had to make do. So would there be a special emergency airdrop for their meds? Not to mention infection and ongoing preventive treatments. I’m sorry how anybody feels but there are mental issues going on there.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Posted >1 y ago
If you want to be a man, be one. If you want to be a woman, then go ahead. Its not my business to have a say in what you want to do with the one body you were given. But the government shouldn't have to deal with 'wants'. I'm not trying to say that transgenders are less human, but I simply don't understand how everyone is expected to see this as a necessary surgery.
If being transgender gets in the way of your duties then you should't be in the military.
If being transgender gets in the way of your duties then you should't be in the military.
(83)
Comment
(1)
SSG Bill McCoy
9 mo
SPC (Join to see) - Trans surgery IS elective in every sense of the word. Someone wants it ... fine, but NOT at the expense of combat readiness and EVERY single MOS is first and foremost, "a soldier FIRST!" Since when should the taxpayers foot the bill for someone's sexual fantasies?
How would you propose to solve the logistics of prescribed meds for transitioning troops ... in an area of combat? How would you propose to solve the mental health needs of someone in a crisis over their sexuality?
Easy answer: DON'T let them join in the first place, just like we don't allow alcoholics of diabetics to joint for the same reasons called, "readiness."
How would you propose to solve the logistics of prescribed meds for transitioning troops ... in an area of combat? How would you propose to solve the mental health needs of someone in a crisis over their sexuality?
Easy answer: DON'T let them join in the first place, just like we don't allow alcoholics of diabetics to joint for the same reasons called, "readiness."
(5)
Reply
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
7 mo
Capt Seid Waddell no argument here. As you say, "Mental illness is a disqualify characteristic." I'm not in favor or transgender people serving and couldn't find a comment (by me) that resulted in your response.
The main reason I'm opposed to them serving, is the ONGOING issues of medical/psychiatric care they require that will hinder unit effectiveness like deployments, etc.
The main reason I'm opposed to them serving, is the ONGOING issues of medical/psychiatric care they require that will hinder unit effectiveness like deployments, etc.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SFC Howard Holmes
3 mo
SSG Bill McCoy - Wait, wait, wait, with the policies being placed on the military, there seems to be VERY LITTLE common sense involved SSG.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Read This Next