Where do our congresspeople stand on open military service for trans people?
For background regarding trans military service members, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) was enshrined into law in 1993. The military services could no longer legally ask a recruit whether he or she was a homosexual, nor could they legally ask whether a then current servicemember was gay, lesbian or bisexual – the “Don’t Ask” part of DADT. However, being lesbian, gay or bisexual was still a reason to discharge servicemembers, so the legislative policy was one of LGB servicemembers having to stay silent about their sexual orientation – the “Don’t Tell” part of DADT.
After 17 years, the law was repealed, and in 2011 gay, lesbian and bisexual servicemembers could not only legally serve in the U.S. military, but could serve openly.
Yet, the enactment of and the repeal of DADT had no impact whatsoever on trans people being able to serve. Trans people can’t serve openly in the U.S. military services because Department of Defense (DoD) regulations state trans people can’t. When asked in May of this year about this regulatory policy, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stated, “I do think it continually should be reviewed.”
“I’m open to those assessments, because – again, I go back to the bottom line – every qualified American who wants to serve our country should have an opportunity if they fit the qualifications and can do it,” Hagel continued.
So, I asked Rep. Susan Davis where she stands on open service for trans people.
“Transgender individuals should not be denied the opportunity to serve in our nation’s military solely on the basis of their gender identity,” she stated. “As with the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the Department of Defense will need to make personnel policy adjustments. It makes sense for the DOD leaders to review the entirety of this matter.”
Davis continued by stating, “A key component of this issue is to ensure workplace protections for transgender individuals. America must continually strive to advance equality for all of its citizens. In keeping with that, Congress needs to pass ENDA with strong transgender protections. We, as a country, should be well beyond using traits, characteristics or gender to qualify individuals for employment; if your job performance makes you the most qualified for employment, then you should be allowed to do the job.”
It matters where Rep. Davis stands on this. She currently is the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee, and in 2008, when she was the chair of that subcommittee, convened the first Congressional hearing on the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. When repeal of DADT was signed into law, Rep. Davis was one of five members of Congress on that stage that President Obama thanked for their leadership in working the repeal bill through Congress.
I also remember in 2007 when the House was debating ENDA that Rep. Davis stood on the House floor, and expressed strong disappointment that the 2007 version of the bill didn’t include protections based on gender identity. She cited San Diego architect Vicki Estrada, a transgender business woman who almost lost a California state contract because she’s transgender. Estrada didn’t lose the contract because of California civil rights protections; Rep. Davis cited Estrada and the California protections as reasons why employment protections based on gender identity should have remained in the 2007 ENDA bill.
Rep. Davis didn’t respond to the second question I posed: where does she stand on transgender veterans being able to change their DD214s – military discharge papers – to reflect their new names. Right now, trans veterans who want to claim their service histories prior to transition must out themselves in the employment vetting process, and many in the trans community believe this inability to update their DD214 impacts their ability to obtain employment.
Knowing that Rep. Davis, a significant force behind the repeal of DADT, stands on the side of open trans military service is important. I can’t name another representative who’s taken a position on open trans military service.
Again, open service in the military for transgender people is an absurd idea that should be forgotten. There are too many problems that it would result in, and it would be harmful to the military’s primary mission. This just shows how out of touch transgender extremists are with reality.
The Tee-Gees are not only not on the same page as the rest of us living in the real world they are not even on the same planet.
Anne
There is no physical, mental, or administrative reason that trans people shouldn’t be allowed to serve. I served for 28 years and I am a trans person. I saved hundreds of lives over the course of that career in garrison, and during six deployments. I came out to my colleagues after my retirement and not a single one has had issue with it and all were disappointed to see me go. If we had an open service policy like other civilized allies There is no telling how many more lives I might have saved. This policy has literally caused the deaths of service members and their families. Anyone that supports this policy therefore logically supports those deaths occurring. When are the closed minded bigots going to stop being allowed to destroy our national defense just to meet their religious agendas.
So you don’t think you announcing to you fellow military peers that you are a woman trapped in a man’s body would cause problems in your unit?
I think you have lost touch with common sense.
Anne
Well, let’s see…. First off, if you were able to serve 28 years, as a male, then you might be a “trans person,” but you are not a woman. You could not have survived that long. But, would you have expected to be barracked with women? Or men? Would you have expected to be allowed to wear a female uniform? Open service for trans people, as you put it, would cause total disruption of discipline. That’s not bigotry…that is simple reality.
A Woman, Period and Anne, I am one of those so-called out of touch transgender extremists, I am a transwoman, and I am an actively serving NCO (noncommissioned officer, aka a sergeant) in the US Army. I have deployed twice to Afghanistan and currently work for my division’s headquarters as a communications planner for both real world and training missions. While I understand that might seem a bizarre set of circumstances for you, I promise my commander and first sergeant are quite happy with my job performance to date and are aware of the fact that I am a transgender soldier and that by regulations I should be administratively discharged. What are your credentials to speak on this issue?
What you may not be aware of is the fact that many of our allies allow us to serve openly, and yet have not witnessed the detriment to mission success you warn of. While they generally prefer trans individuals transition before joining, they have streamlined the process for service members that need to transition while actively serving. The military is quite adept at supplying medication for a wide range of medical issues in austere enviroments, so there is no argument that providing hormones while deployed is an impossible hurdle.
The fact is, there is no defensible opposition to transgender service, as even the argument that having a transgender service member in a unit would be detrimental to good order and discipline as the same argument was used to oppose the repeal of DADT and it is readily appearant it was merely a straw man lacking any substance.
Given that the military ia actively drawing down, trying to retain only the best of the best; I challenge you to try and move passed your automatic gut reaction that transgender people are ‘icky’ or ‘weird’ or ‘mentally ill’ or whatever else you might believe and put forth a solid reason why the military should reduce the pool of candidates based on such an outdated an arbitrary policy.
Considering we got out ass kicked in Afghanistan and Iraq I would say you are dead wrong. Today’s modern rainbow co-ed military is a disgrace to this country.
Anne
You may call yourself a “trans woman,” but if you can serve, as a man,and not have the sort of conflicts that someone who really is a transsexual (which, I grant is not the same as “transgender”) and therefore, you are not really a woman. If your superiors don’t care, that is their issue, not mine.
Our allies, that your refer to, pretty much rely on the US Military to actually carry out things. They may provide some support, but they would be lost without us. So, please, spare us that lame argument.
Why should it retain such a policy? Because we would soon have men demanding to be allowed to sleep in women’s barracks, use the same showers, etc. And that would destroy our military.
For many weeks I have been taken aback by all this trans bashing done by the same people. As a postoperative transsexual am I supposed to have some kind of special rights? Because I can afford surgery and because I can blend in to society at large, does that make me better than other trans people who have no desire to have surgery? It seems that some people are offended by recent political developments that put all trans people under the same umbrella. I guess I just want to say: what are you afraid of? That cis-gendered people will make fun of you? Do you think you earned the right to pass among them and you’re afraid you might be outed?
And by the way, the LGBT Weekly needs to update its policy on comments. The publication should require a person to give a full legal name so that anonymous comments are not possible. People should stand up for what they believe instead of hiding behind pseudonyms like WTF. It’s easy for me as WTF to go after you, to say whatever I want and take no responsibility for saying it.
Okay, if you really are a post-op, and you really can blend in, but you cannot see that you are different from “people who have no desire to have surgery” then, well, that’s your right. Yes, I am highly offended when I am linked to trans people, period. It is not a matter of fear (such a lame dodge), it is a matter of not having gone through all the pain I did, just to continue feeling like some sort of freak. I realize that some, apparently including yourself, relish this. You think it makes you “special.” Personally, I simply want to be what apparently terrifies you…an ordinary woman.
So, why didn’t you adhere to your idea, and use your full legal name? Oh, yeah….
I’m glad you responded. You made your point without attacking me until the very end. So close! You’re entitled to advance your positions. But I don’t see how attacking other people so viciously gives credence to your viewpoint.
Everyone has a different journey. For me being stealth for many many years proved to be untenable. As you probably know, I had to pretend that my life before transition didn’t exist, or I had to make up stories about my life. I always felt uncomfortable being that way. But I wasn’t willing to take on the discrimination that coming out might cause. Society doesn’t allow us to be “ordinary women.” Coming out for me has been liberating. I’ve been able to talk to all my cis-gendered friends as myself.
But I understand if this is not your journey. And I respect all you have endured both physically and emotionally. But I don’t understand the need to attack trans people who don’t live up to your expectations. Why make transgender people feel bad about themselves? There is already enough hate directed at trans* people.
As to using my full legal name, I promise that I will when everybody else on this site does so.
Perhaps in the future, we can discuss and debate Autumn Sandeen’s commentary on transgender issues. But let’s be respectful of each other.
Well, I feel uncomfortable being since as anything but a woman. I attack trans people who show no respect for those who are not “trans.” Those who try to invade women’s space even though they are males. Those who want to coopt the experiences of real transsexuals, even though the are really just fetishtic crossdressers. I attack those who presume to force a label on me that I reject.
The term Cis-Gender is a slur you wouldn’t want me to call you a He-She would you? What gives you the right to force that label on those among us who have ether by birth or by surgery have aligned our body to lead a heterosexual life as the sex we should have been born as.
You talk about attacking others, you people do it yourself and seem to believe you have a pass to do so.
Anne
I find it hilarious that the tee-gee brigade actually believes no eyebrows will be raised by a DD-214 that could be modified in a manner that STILL is readily a legal fiction…employers KNOW that females did not see combat duty in the manner the tee-gees typically are associated with. As such, modification of the document does NOTHING to help promote ‘stealth’ or to ‘prevent’ the tranny from being outed to ALL who see the record…
I am so sorry for all your pain.
Oh and WTF if you are so concerned about people posting under an assumed name, you should lead by example and post your full legal name.
“Transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military”, aka “Transgender people should get to kill brown people too”
That seems to be all the illegitimate government of the United States is doing.
A brown president with his brown Tee-Gee wife killing brown people all over the world. Makes me want to vomit when I think of the time I use to be proud to be an American, not anymore. This country has gone down the shit hole. and most of the American population is all obsessed television or sex or being politically correct while their country turns to shit.
America is Dead.
Anne
On second thought let the trannys serve it won’t make things any worse then they already are.
Anne
I am sorry for all you pain and anguish. You are really having a tough time. Being so hateful must be a lot of work. I hope someday you find peace.
The truth is never hateful, it’s just is the truth.
Enjoy your authoritarian socialist utopia.
Anne
By the way I notice you have noting to say about Lavern COCKS and her misadventures.
Anne
You know, disagreeing with a radical, extremist position is not equivalent to hatred. Throwing accusations of “hate” out as a response to such disagreement simply shows that you have no real arguments
It also shows a high degree of childishness.
Anne
That adsrdsees several of my concerns actually.
Here is the real face of the Transgenders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eiYHjqBToCM
Unbelievable…. These people have no grasp of decency, reality, or common sense.
Not only that COX puts out a statement that can be found here;
http://lavernecox.tumblr.com/post/95567409116/when-i-agreed-to-participate-in-a-recent-sylvia
COX doesn’t even apologize for backing this monster but pleads ignorance.
There is a petition to have COX thrown off that TV show she plays a Tee-Tee criminal on. Orange is the new Black.
It is at Change.org.. Here is the URL for anybody wants to sign it.
https://www.change.org/p/netflix-remove-laverne-cox-from-the-cast-of-orange-is-the-new-black
This whole issue is an object lesson in the character of the Tee-Gees and who they look up to.
Anne