Change is happening for the better. SECAF makes positive changes to Transgender military service policy, what are your points of view?

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 01:33:36 -0400

I'm proud to be part of this change as this article is about me and my family

"The Air Force announced policy changes Thursday that will make it more difficult to discharge transgender troops, a move that mirrors one made in March by the Army and puts the Pentagon a step closer to allowing transgender people to serve openly.

Troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria or who identify as transgender are generally discharged from serving, based on medical grounds. Those decisions have been made by doctors and unit commanders. The new Air Force policy requires those decisions to be reviewed by high-level officials at Air Force headquarters.

"Though the Air Force policy regarding involuntary separation of gender dysphoric Airmen has not changed, the elevation of decision authority to the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency, ensures the ability to consistently apply the existing policy," Daniel Sitterly, a top Air Force personnel official, said in a statement.

The Air Force and Army moves follow a number of statements from top Pentagon officials about dismantling the policy allowing transgender troops to be kicked out of the services. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said this year in response to a question about transgender service that ability to perform military tasks should be the standard for eligibility.

Air Force Secretary Deborah James expressed openness to allowing transgender troops to serve.

"From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve," James told USA TODAY. "And so I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't come under review."

The Pentagon, as part of a review of medical eligibility rules, is examining the transgender issue. A decision on that is not likely for months. The last review was conducted in 2011.

The Air Force move puts the Pentagon on a path similar to the one it followed on the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allowed gays and lesbians to serve unless their sexuality was discovered.

Until 2011, the decision to discharge gay troops had been raised to the Pentagon's top lawyer and personnel official and service secretaries. That requirement functioned as a moratorium, as no further dismissals were sought under "don't ask, don't tell."

A psychiatrist or psychologist must support the recommendation for discharge for gender dysphoria. A commander must also determine that the condition interferes with troops' performance of their duty.

Several close allies of the U.S. military, including Great Britain and Israel, allow transgender troops to serve openly."

Read the full story here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/04/air-force-transgender-troops/28501835/

Air Force eases policy banning transgender troops

The Air Force changes policy on transgender troops.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 1:52 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 01:52:08 -0400

Sharing bunks and using bathrooms can be some of the greatest issues as far as I see. besides, what showers SHOULD they be utilizing? Potential for sexual offenses?? Let's not even go there. Tough call indeed.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 3:22 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 03:22:23 -0400

Sexual assault has always been an issue military wide, not just on opposite sex. I believe you can be whomever you feel you should be, on that note however, your gender identity should be based on genetelia. If you have male genetals and identify as female, you should still bunk with the men (as an example). Once a sex change is completed, you should move accordingly. Regardless, this shouldn't be as difficult a conversation as many make it to be. Different isn't always bad.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 4:40 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 04:40:14 -0400

I am just an infantry officer. I don't see this in the political light. I have been to combat. I have seen enough in my time in to understand the demands of the Army. My opinion isn't reflective of the current push to accept this.

I don't understand how this is going to make us more combat effective. I look at the past and see a contribute of a minority group that greatly impacted the war effort. The Navajo Code talkers were one of the greatest assets in the war. I just don't see how this will lead to a better Army or military. I am of course not talking about the need for equality. I believe it is a balancing act that should be in check. In some places in the Army equality should decide how a unit is structured and in some other places the mission should decide.

Should the Army offer assistance for such. I wouldn't mind some test boosters on the Army's dollar. But I can't get them. All of a sudden this equality is out of the window. There are some things that a standing Army shouldn't entertain. When gay soldiers came out I was in favor of that move. They serve honorably. There wasn't anything more than just changing a policy. But this would drastically effect more than that. I don't know how this would work in the Army or the Marines where more jobs are separated by the gender lines.

Can a transgender that now identifies themselves as a female serve on a Cultural Engagement Team. Then when they come back can then re-identify as a male to try out for Special Forces? This is something that I don't think an Army should be dealing with. But if the transgender do this it will only be a matter of time.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 6:58 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:58:53 -0400

I think the main focus needs to be on cost effectiveness and readiness. Should the DOD foot the bill for transition surgery if somebody identifies as a different gender than they currently have? Does they DOD need to provide them time off to transition? How does gender dysphoria effect the readiness of personnel? Are there significant issues and costs that would affect their ability to deploy?

The services frequently deny entry based on physical or mental health reasons, and they frequently separate personnel for medical issues. Is there any benefit to recruiting and/or retaining transgender personnel, VS other medical or mental health issues? Or is it all just about being "politically correct" no matter the cost?

Response by 1stSgt Edward Jackson made Jan 18 at 2017 9:56 AM

1stSgt Edward Jackson — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:56:54 -0500

I am sorry but I disagree with you. The US Military Forces are not a 'social experiment'. We require a disciplined force to be combat ready. Some members of Congress and liberal politicians like to use our military for social experiments just to garner votes in election years. Almost all of these experiments fail.
Being 'transgender' is a mental disorder that leaves someone with identity confusion, and if you are confused about who you are, you are easily confused about other things, too. This is a big problem in the heat of battle that could lead to failure of your 'muscle memory' putting yourself and your team's lives in danger.
Like the experiment of gays in the military or gay marriage in the military, transgender troops bring a big question of trust and reliability to your fellow troops.
Then there is the big question of capture by enemy forces. How do you think an enemy will treat you compared to your fellow POWs?
Finally, where do military social experiments end? Will pedophiles and drug addicts be allowed to serve? What about known rapists? How about people who have sex with animals? Former US Army PFC Bradley Manning is a transgender. He showed the world just how much he (she?) could be trusted and is currently serving time at the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks, although President Obama commuted his sentence yesterday and he will be released in May 2017
The US has a population of about 325 million people, less than 1% serve in the military and less than 8% have ever served. About 2% of our population identify as gay or transgender. Of our population, about 30% are within the age groups the military seeks to fill its ranks. Not everyone qualifies. We need to recruit the very best from this demographic, that means no gays, no transgender, no untrustworthy people (straight or not). we have to maintain a disciplined, trusted, and combat ready force. The faith of our nation depends on it.

Response by Lt Col Robert Canfield made Jan 18 at 2017 10:58 AM

Lt Col Robert Canfield — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:58:41 -0500

I think common sense should prevail in these situations. Elective surgeries of just about any kind should be avoided. I see gender reassignment surgeries (GRS), tattoos, piercings, and many cosmetic plastic surgeries as unnecessary and just plain risky. Why carve up your body when it's medically unnecessary? Then there are all the hormone supplements and chemicals that get pumped into you as part of the overall procedure ...and who knows what the long term effects of that is. I just don't see how it contributes to overall military readiness. The fact is: that when on a deployment, you are not going to have access to state-of-the-art health care. So... if you run into complications, you are probably going to get shipped home and someone else gets tapped to take your place. Granted, plastic surgery may be necessary to repair an injury or an actual birth defect, but in these cases the medical necessity far outweighs the risk. I think medical history will look back on GRS as something akin to a lobotomy or the use of bleeding to cure disease. It makes more sense in these situations for medical science to be looking at the "North end", and not the "South end". This is probably not the answer you were looking for, but its an honest one coming from experience dealing with several medical conditions that are no fun (i.e. cancer etc)

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 11:31 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:31:13 -0500

I've always felt that military service (or almost any job/career) should be based on ability. I don't care about your race, religion, gender, mental state, physical condition, etc.
If you can perform X, Y, Z adequately, you are suitable for job 1. If you are unable to perform X, Y, or Z adequately, you are not suitable for job 1. Look to something else.
Is that discriminatory? Certainly. If you're blind, you can't be a fighter pilot. Doesn't matter that you want to; you're incapable.
Your sexuality shouldn't enter into it in the first place, unless it somehow precludes you from being able to perform the task.
On the other hand, we've (most societies across history) always segregated males and females based on the concept of keeping the traditional 'preferred' sexual partners apart when they're using toilets, showers, sleeping quarters, some professions, etc.
When you start accepting (or more accurately, acknowledging) homosexual, transsexual, transgender individuals as distinct orientations in any society, what sort of segregation is acceptable?
Do we set up separate facilities for every permutation of sexuality? Seems unlikely that we're going to establish individual Basic Training groups for hetero males, hetero females, homo males, homo females, trans males, and on and on. And don't forget half a dozen or more additional sets of bathrooms, shower facilities and sleeping quarters.
I would prefer to see segregation based on any gender end entirely. We're all people; everyone in one big pot. Unfortunately, we can't seem to stop raping and harassing each other even with all the current separations and laws in place, so I don't foresee humankind evolving mentally to the point where this is possible any time soon.
If we were capable of being decent to each other as a matter of course, rather than as the exception, this would never have become an issue in the first place.

Response by Brig Gen Joe C made Jan 20 at 2017 11:30 AM

Brig Gen Joe C — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:30:37 -0500

As you noted, diagnosed with gender dysphoria. A disease, in this case a mental disease. Hopefully the new SECAF will re-evaluate the poor social experiments of the past and correct this error.