If Army policy changes to permit service by transgender/intersex personnel, what accommodations should leaders consider?

2014-12-18T15:27:23-05:00

The SECDEF and SEC Air Force have both stated publicly that they are open to the possibility. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/10/air-force-chief-suggests-transgender-ban-may-eventually-be-lifted/

Air Force chief suggests transgender ban may eventually be lifted

"Times change," Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said in an interview.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 3:32 PM

2014-12-18T15:32:17-05:00

What should Army leaders be thinking about to better prepare for the possibility of transgender/intersex service in the military?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 5:07 PM

2014-12-18T17:07:46-05:00

LTC Private RallyPoint Member.

I think a lot depends on what accommodations are proposed . . . how command responds . . . and how our troops respond after being informed about command expectations.

If the estimate of 15,500 already serving transgender troops is accurate this may not be so much of an issue as it might have been many decades ago . . . when our military was unquestionably and overwhelmingly a white male heterosexual christian society. Those primitive intolerant racist sexist medieval times are very long gone.

As it stands now . . . twelve major national militaries around the world now permit transgender people to serve openly in their defense forces. Britain permitted transgender people to serve openly since 1999 . . . Australia permitted transgender service since 2010. Each generation has become increasingly tolerant of individual differences . . . intersex / transgender status are just two more arbitrary interpersonal classification differences.

The successful integration of so many women, minorities, non-christian, gay, lesbian service members into an increasingly wide range of staff, operator, and command roles in our military suggests we may have been too narrow minded when we adopted formal medical regulations discriminating between broad classes of people.

If the exceptionally conservative USDOS can modify its prior discriminatory standard . . . so can the USDOD.

Who cares to which gender you identify/are attracted to if you are outstanding staff, operator, or commander?

We have far more important things to worry about than whether some document says you are M / F / I / X !!!

Warmest Regards, Sandy

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/06/142922.htm

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143160.pdf

New Policy on Gender Change in Passports Announced

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Dec 18 at 2014 5:50 PM

2014-12-18T17:50:03-05:00

Um, none? Whatever their legal gender is, treat them as that. (note that legal gender and biological gender are not always the same thing)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 7:28 PM

2014-12-18T19:28:25-05:00

They'd only have to rewrite AR 40-501 Standards of Medical Fitness

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 9:06 PM

2014-12-18T21:06:52-05:00

not touching this landmine

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Dec 18 at 2014 10:44 PM

2014-12-18T22:44:41-05:00

No accommodations. Everything 100% unisex... Boys, girls, LGBQT... Same quarters, latrines, showers, doctors... 100% honesty and transparency.

Response by SGT Joseph Smith made Dec 19 at 2014 12:14 AM

2014-12-19T00:14:10-05:00

Bathroom rights?(Just kidding?)

If you fight for this country WE live in, then accommodations should be made in the name of every soldiers sacrifice--thus stated means: "The people" should consider giving these peoples(soldiers) rights in the way they wish to live.

I personally agree with unisex bathrooms and showers: it would make a stronger person mentality overall, but that's just my thought on it, and brotherhood/sisterhood would be even more stronger.

If you think sex(as in the action) is always the culprit, you're ultimately wrong, it's a mental strength of restraint, and that would put us all above the curve if we could finally overcome it.

If you take out the weak points of mental misconception, then you make a stronger people, and people are weak in the way they think in today's world: sorry, it's true.

Response by CSM Frank Graham made Dec 19 at 2014 3:11 AM

2014-12-19T03:11:31-05:00

They should receive no special treatment. They will have to live by the rules and regulations of our Armed Forces as all others do. When this category of service members can not comply then, time to send them back to civilian life. I would like to remind everyone that folks like these are currently in your ranks already and have served along side of you in combat. The service members i am talking about however are smart enough to keep the not so norm under cover so they can serve. This is nothing new. If ordered leaders will have to adapt and carry out the orders that are given and enforce Military standards.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2014 8:40 PM

2014-12-19T20:40:57-05:00

Sorry I posted this to a specific post. I wanted a bit broader posting (because I am such an egotist that I want to make sure everyone knows what I am thinking...NOT). I wanted to have a bit broader dissemination:

Not sure about accommodations. In my view, a Soldier is a Soldier is a Soldier. If a Soldier is persecuted/hazed because of something other than some action that brings discredit to the unit by their purposeful action or stupidity, the unit should look at themselves as a bully. I have seen enough Soldiers that I wasn't sure of their gender (either way) in my days that do their jobs very well that I don't care about the whole LGBT thing. That's personal, same as inter-racial marriage, which was illegal less than 50 years ago in some states. Think about that.

Thank you for your patience with my error.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2014 9:08 PM

2014-12-19T21:08:02-05:00

Ma'am,

I would say they should be no different than what is already being done today. The gender the SM identifies with on their official documents should be how they are housed. From there, if we treat other SMs with respect, then it shouldn't be an issue. This may be wishful thinking, but who knows!

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Dec 20 at 2014 7:09 AM

2014-12-20T07:09:28-05:00

IMHO, there are only two available genders on this planet, male and female. While we are assigned one at birth, if one wishes to change their gender, that's fine - but once, only once, no fingers crossed, "tried it, didn't like it" BS. Pick one, officially adopt it and stick with it. This makes it fair for everyone and no laws or regs have to be rewritten.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 20 at 2014 1:32 PM

2014-12-20T13:32:57-05:00

We can outmaneuver all of this very simply: equality. Same standards, same opportunities, same requirements, same uniforms, same PT tests, same MOS options, same school options, same haircut/make-up/jewelry/ standards, same partner benefits standards the only accommodations/differences necessary are those truly medical: biological females need different medical care in some specific cases than biological males, and each should get what their bodies need. Voluntary surgeries or therapies (whether you want Testosterone as a biologically born male with low T or a biologically born Female identifying as a man) of any kind should be at personal expense. Nothing else should be different.

Problem(s) solved.

Anything short of this means a thicket of thorns populated by hornets' nests.

Response by SSG Daniel Deiler made Dec 20 at 2014 2:58 PM

2014-12-20T14:58:06-05:00

Not a single one. When they enlist and have their physical that will tell you what accommodations they will get. NO SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS...PERIOD.

Response by SSG Daniel Deiler made Dec 20 at 2014 3:00 PM

2014-12-20T15:00:09-05:00

I'd like to see how the h-e double hockey sticks they think over 15K are confused about what is between their legs...errrr, I mean transgendered.

Response by SPC David S. made Dec 20 at 2014 3:23 PM

2014-12-20T15:23:37-05:00

I feel that some ribbing from other members is going to be the hardest part for commanders. I hope that most individuals would take it in stride as in the civilian world a very diverse workplace is common. However the issues of a transgender male to female Ranger I feel is going to find life in the military not well suited for the lifestyle that comes with being transgender-ed. Even as Kristen Beck did transform she will admit it was not easy. For commanders maintaining respect within the ranks and among peers while getting these members integrated will be the hardest part, the accommodations is the easy part. I think a male to female would more than likely want to bunk up with females, but this is something that needs to be addressed with all that are affected. As I played rugby men and women in the shower at the same time is not that strange. We share locker room/showers/jerseys/shorts and so on. Its all about the game. This is something I think soldiers need to keep in mind. If a he/she or she/he wants to join in some of the fun give'em a damn gun. As there are many other armed forces with this it is proven that it can work.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/lady-valor-kristin-beck-transgender-navy-seal-interview/

Transgender ex-Navy SEAL Kristin Beck reveals her story - CNN.com

Former U.S. Navy SEAL Kristin Beck, who recently came out as transgender, talks about her journey in a new CNN Film.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2014 8:40 PM

2014-12-20T20:40:43-05:00

We shouldn't be concentrating on this kind of garbage when we see all this down-sizing.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2014 10:49 PM

2014-12-20T22:49:25-05:00

This reminds me of a situation months ago:
And there I was at AT 2014: Advanced party. Driving a truck. My TC was a male. We were to report to a specified barracks and off-load equipment.
Arrived and mission complete.
There was not a single person, male or female, occupying this barracks. We go in and head to the latrine. The same latrine. I immediately go to the sink to wash my hands. He walks in behind me...and promptly turns around to go find another latrine to do do the same thing I was doing.
In a split second, I volleyed between the idea that my bare hands were fabulously sexy and the fact that my buddy so feared a potential SHARP complaint that he was willing to scour the base for another sink.
And this has happened before.
Only female at HQ. I had to pee. Walk into a latrine. Walked out to a sign being taped up "FEMALES ONLY". Literally. I had either contaminated it with girl germs or higher-ups decided that Armageddon wasn't happening until after AT...with you know, the onset prompted by men and women peeing in the same spot.
Or the scandal that happened when an NCO could see women in the barracks in our BARE T-SHIRTS (oh my) and had us tape garbage bags over the blinds.

Most Americans are like 15 year old kids in the sexuality department. We can't even say "penis" or "vagina" without going red in the face. Let alone, actually seeing an anatomically correct human, outside of youporn searches. And with the "wrong parts" in our locker rooms! Minds blown!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2014 1:25 AM

2014-12-22T01:25:31-05:00

If senior leaders authorize this then they owe it to the military to develop the necessary regulations. Otherwise there will only be carnage in the implementation.

There was a big stink about desegregating the military, and with allowing women in, and with allowing gays to openly serve. As it turns out, the military could handle everything asked of it.

Response by PO1 Robert Elton made Dec 22 at 2014 4:37 PM

2014-12-22T16:37:20-05:00

I don't care what the plumbing happens to be. I only care about can they perform the job. Set the physical fitness standards the same for everyone. If you can't pass, then you can't serve. If someone wants it bad enough, they will do it. Not everyone is cut out for this job. If they fail, give them an honorable out. One standard for all is the only way to make it fair for all.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Dec 22 at 2014 4:52 PM

2014-12-22T16:52:55-05:00

I have to say thanks LTC Private RallyPoint Member, I had never heard the term intersex before!

We enforce the lawful orders (policies/rules etc) of the POTUS and the officers appointed over us. Some of our leaders are in politically sensitive positions and must address big issues on a very public stage and therefore we often get only bits & pieces of a conversation.

We are not a democratic organization, but if allowed to provide input then I'd assume our input would be collected by another survey.....

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2014 12:29 PM

2014-12-23T12:29:32-05:00

Gender Dysphoria is a relatively well understood and documented medical condition within the medical community, there are many trans veterans out there who under the specter of the "remaining" DADT policy have served ably and competently. As leaders trans troops should be considered and understood with proper consideration towards their condition and actual gender, and a strong step should be taken against any potential discrimination that individual could face. It's a poorly understood outside aforementioned community and where there is not understanding, problems can be generated by less worldly troops. Other than working towards preventing conflicts before they can really happen. If the lifting of this restriction follows the DADT repeal pattern however these issues will be minimal at best, housing issues should be prepared for however.

As far as standards go, I have yet to meet a trans service member or a trans person in general who wants standards lowered for them. Those of them who want to serve or have served simply want to continue serving. There are many examples of trans individuals who have met our military's highest standards,like Navy SEAL Kristen Beck, or my good friend Sara, who's a former Force Recon Marine. The challenge and any accommodations made, won't have to be on the training and fighting side of things if our trans service members follow their examples by even half.

Response by SPC John Decker made Dec 24 at 2014 2:45 PM

2014-12-24T14:45:21-05:00

It seems to me that nature provided for male and female. We're talking about special provisions for people who feel they don't fit one of those descriptions. NO.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 6:30 AM

2015-01-09T06:30:20-05:00

Since reading about this in the news I have contemplated how on earth this could work. I Have read a fair amount about Kristen beck and now think this is one individual that could (if given the chance) to squash two problems at once. As a former member of special operations she already has the knowledge and training to show that both women and transgendered individuals can quite easily function within combat arms.
Now when I try to think about the logistics of someone transitioning while in the service I come up with a multitude of problems. Most of which would only be overcome if all Service Members were treated the same and were required to perform at the same level. Additionally I know this would also require transitioning individuals to have a break from the service during the surgical portion of their process.
Over all I think this is something all services eventually need to go to; one set of standards for all SMs. But until that day comes the Armed Forces will not be able to properly handle this type of change.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 6:54 AM

2015-02-26T06:54:38-05:00

This is what these people think are important and does nothing to promote morale and if anything is a bunch more distractions. I hope that the new administration fires these jokers and presses charges.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 7:23 AM

2015-02-26T07:23:07-05:00

I don't think that community would expect or want huge accomodations however I think there would be a couple issues to work out: 1. what gender fitness / combat position standards apply 2. Health coverage for hormone drugs and surgery complications

As far as facilities, it should be whatever gender they most strongly identity with. It would be impossible and silly for the military to fund building separate dorms/bathroom areas for them.

Response by MSgt Stephanie McCalister made Feb 26 at 2015 8:49 AM

2015-02-26T08:49:01-05:00

I'll be honest, I never had any issues associating with, or serving alongside anyone, regardless of how they identified themselves. If someone's already gone through GRS (Gender Reassignment Surgery), & is fully recovered, with the only thing medically speaking is taking their hormones, then I don't see any issues during deployments or otherwise. Dermapatches & pills can be prescribed & issued for 90-120 days at a time & the individual responsible for their own medicating. Prescriptions can be requested & mailed out in advance as needed, with minimal burden on field medics.

If they're already fully in their gender reassignment, lodging & any other requirements should match those of anyone else of their gender status. Currently however, there's no magic wand to wave for addressing accommodation needs for TG in transition if actively serving.

But, the question raised a lot of issues, so I started researching. And to be honest, even with today's technology, I don't see how it's possible for an actively serving Military member to remain in service and deployable during a transition period of Gender Reassignment.

Other concerns:
Following GRS, issues that might arise: Surgical & emergency treatment considerations in the event of battlefield injuries? (My research didn't address anatomical concerns).

Also, is the individual at a higher risk if identified by the enemy, because medications would likely be withheld, and some cultures would not be humane in their treatment of POWs, especially in say, the middle east?

Let me explain why I reached my conclusions, by using an example of something I'm personally familiar with:

While actively serving, and becoming pregnant, I had to be reassigned to administrative or light duties, and was non-deployable. Then giving birth (with no complications), 6 weeks to recover & return to duty, & in the case of flying, a period of retraining ensued before I was back up to full qualification. Plus, fairly quickly, I also had to lose any additional weight in order to stay in regs. That's a large chunk of time - per pregnancy. And if I'm not able to fly, that puts my squadron short one flight engineer for operational purposes. It's not like they can just swap me out for one of the admins & let him or her take over my duties in the meantime, right?

Let's fast forward a couple of years... I've had my children, and know I don't want anymore. So I request tubal ligation surgery. Is this elective surgery? It's not medically necessary for any reason other than pregnancy prevention, which I could also take pills for instead. But, my request is approved, great?

However, regulations stipulate that in order for me to have the surgery to prevent further pregnancies, I'm required to submit to 6 months of counseling, with my spouse if married, to ensure I/we are in fact really ready for such a step. (Yes, you have to both concur - essentially your spouse has to give permission for you to make the choice to no longer have children).
Then there's the surgery, and a period of recovery & followup appointments, which may include some additional counseling before being cleared to return to full duty once again.

In & of itself, the counseling period described doesn't prevent me from my duties, counseling appts can be scheduled around my mission, but if I get deployed in the meantime, my counseling would get put ON HOLD - which means, so does my surgery request. Essentially I'd have to start over again upon my return, because, who knows what might have occurred in the meantime that may have caused either myself or my spouse to change our minds?

Taking my example into consideration, these following comments are based on the research I read regarding male to female gender reassignment surgery (GRS):

Logistically speaking, I don't see how GRS is possible during service, because you're looking at the possibility of a FOUR YEAR minimum for a complete transition, which not only includes medical treatment, but also ongoing lab work & mental health therapy & counseling throughout (& possibly following) the entire process.

Essentially, GRS should either already be fully behind the individual before they enlist; or they could submit a request to be honorably discharged with a reenlistment code that identifies a medical clearance upon reentry, but otherwise doesn't restrict them or require a waiver to rejoin the service; and thus take the time necessary to complete their GRS journey. (Or just not reenlist & come back afterwards?)

Then come back as 'prior service' & get credit for their original time in service & rank, but with the break in service, and also their new identity properly tied in.

It might require them to be retrained, which would be an additional expense to their reintegration into the service, but since we have prior service rejoin all the time, in & of itself, that shouldn't be a factor against their returning to military service.

So in conclusion, medically speaking at least, one day, we'll have the medical technology that makes all this moot, but we're not there yet ... and that's really the only thing that makes this impractical at this time, at least while still actively serving. I'll leave the political and philosophical aspects to others to debate.

I'll add a couple of links to share the research I reviewed for my opinions in sharing this perspective for educational purposes (the second link covers much more about transgender reassignment):

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/30/sex-reassignment-surgery-transgender-journey

http://www.transgendercare.com/medical/resources/tmf_program/tmf_program_regimens.asp

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 5:18 PM

2015-03-01T17:18:51-05:00

I'm just not sure I'm ok with "accommodating" anybody. After an injury that I received, I was unable to serve in certain units as a result. One of the basic tenants of the military is conformity to standards. There's always talk about double standards and there always will be. The biggest issue I hear complaints about is the different PT standards between males and females. Whatever, time to get over that. But I still have two questions that I would like somebody to answer:

1. Is there a possibility that a person who reassigns their sex from one gender to another could have a negative impact on medical services received in a battlefield like trauma? Before the snarky comments start, I understand that humans are humans regardless of gender. BUT, biological males have prostates, biological women don't...same holds true for biological females and ovaries...Still same question about medical services.

2. Resiliency isn't about feeling "happy" in so much as it is a sort of mental toughness. Since the repeal of don't ask don't tell has there been any study of the impact of individual readiness of Soldiers within the LBGT community? My thoughts are that it has to be a significant emotional event to both be able to "come out" and also to serve openly. Are we meeting the mark irt resiliency?

These next questions are hypothetical, but, still within the realm of culture change:

1. Do we allow polygamy? Some faiths and certain lifestyles find multiple spouses acceptable. Do we accommodate polygamists?

2. What about adultery? It's still a UCMJ'able event. If the military is going to take the stance that leaders have no business in the private life of a service-member, then should we stay out of marriage all together?

I'm ultimately concerned that the glue that bonds the military irt cohesion and esprit de corps is being negatively impacted because of personal opinions rooted in emotion. And it's just not as easy to tell everybody to shut-up and color or to leave your personal opinions at the door. After all it is an opinion that transgender be allowed to serve openly, just like it's an opinion to not allow it.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2015 5:16 PM

2015-03-09T17:16:27-04:00

Would a man that thinks he's a woman receive a PT test under the male or female standards? Would they use the female or male locker rooms / quarters. If a woman who thought she was a man be required to do 70+ push ups to max? Should a man who thinks they are a woman be allowed into combat MOSs? What Class-A type uniform does that person wear? Should a man that thinks they are a woman be allowed to search a Muslim female and visa versa because I think we try to stay gender specific now when at all possible.

I have my own opinions, but I won't share them here. I think there are other things that have to be considered first before we even consider accommodations.

Response by SSG Gelbert Samsung made Mar 26 at 2015 6:24 PM

2015-03-26T18:24:41-04:00

Military has changed for politics, look at the double standards politicians are running the show. Meanwhile, General Officers are playing the loyalty game for promotion. We need old school leadership like Colin Powell.

Response by SSG Gelbert Samsung made Mar 26 at 2015 6:24 PM

2015-03-26T18:24:49-04:00

https://www.change.org/p/barack-obama-army-fox-news-cnn-abc-hold-command-accountable-for-selecting-cases-based-of-discrimination-retaliation-and-racism-with-double-standards?recruiter=264457876&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=mob-xs-no_src-no_msg

Response by SSG Gelbert Samsung made Mar 26 at 2015 6:45 PM

2015-03-26T18:45:30-04:00

Needs to be more specific of accommodations. If not it's gong to turn into a media storm with multiple services voicing their opinions. https://www.change.org/p/barack-obama-army-fox-news-cnn-abc-hold-command-accountable-for-selecting-cases-based-of-discrimination-retaliation-and-racism-with-double-standards?recruiter=264457876&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=mob-xs-no_src-no_msg