Repeal of DADT for LGB’s, but not T’s

Thats horrible! It slightly defeats the purpose...some people are still left out!

 

Yep, trans people thrown under the bus once again.

 

This will not change until transgenderism is no longer associated with GID, and GID should only apply to those transgendered people who feel compelled to physically change their biological sex, not to those who are transgendered, bigendered, genderqueer, etc...

And I surprisingly agree with the military on this one; if you are transsexual and are experiencing the level of psychological agony that would force you into a sex change operation, you don't need to be in the armed forces.

This is the reason - if you are transsexual, you have a serious medical birth condition which results in severe psychological distress. Transgenderism itself shouldn't be considered a mental illness, but it often results in mental illness - gender dysphoria, substance abuse, suicidal depression, etc...none of which bode well for a career involving deadly weapons, and none of which the military wants introduced into its fighting force. I can't say I blame them.

But I think people who have completed transition should be allowed to serve. Those who decide they are transsexual while in active duty should be separated until they finish transitioning to their preferred gender and make all the necessarily legal/paperwork adjustments, at which time (once they clear a psychological evaluation) they should be allowed to return to duty. Those transgendered folks who have no intentions of switching biological sexes should be allowed to serve as long as they adhere to military codes of dress and conduct - same as everybody else.

When I go into the military, I have no intentions of demanding a man's uniform. Do I want one? Yes. Do I want one badly enough to disqualify myself from the armed forces? No. Will having to wear a woman's uniform preventing me from doing my job? No.

Frankly, I just think we need a military that is more unisex for the benefit of all. It's going to take awhile to change the culture on the ground though.

 

If the military routinely disqualifies people for things like clinical depression and bipolar disorder, they have already set a precedence for barring people based on psychological issues. As long as transsexualism is associated with mental illness, I don't think the military is going to budge on this one for awhile, at least until they see that gays and lesbian soldiers serving openly has absolutely no negative effect on unit cohesion.

Transsexualism is considered a mental problem - if you admit to it during psych eval, you're going to get barred.

You've got to look at it from the military's perspective - why should they allow soldiers in who are from the get-go going to require months of expensive therapy when they can just qualify soldiers who don't have to have therapy at all? The U.S. taxpayer does not want to have to pay for sex reassignment surgeries, life-long hormone therapy, and all of the other factors that bind transsexuals to the medical community for life. SRS is expensive. The military doesn't want to pay for it, not when we have guys sharing body armor due to cutbacks.

I don't think it's just like the gay issue. What does it mean to openly serve as a transsexual? Does that mean if you are MtF (and still have a penis) that you will shower with the women? Or the men? If you're FtM and still have breasts, who are you ordered to bunk with? Which uniform will you wear? How do you prevent harassment and sexual assault, which already affects 1 in 3 women serving?

It opens up so many more cans of worms than just allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, and I personally feel it's not quite as cut and dry as the issue is with gays and lesbians.

 

This.

 

I can see where issues like this might lead to an entirely co-ed military, where everyone dresses and showers alike.

I don't understand why everything is so genderized anyway. I think it's just because we're such a hypersexualized society. (I don't like it.)

 

I think that this is just indicative of the fact that while more and more people are accepting gay people in todays society, we are failing as LGBT people to help educate, as we have done for gay people, what being trans really is. it seems that the stereotypes of trans people are still more previlant than the ones for gay people.

 

The issue of DADT goes far beyond the issue with it's repeal making life no better for trans individuals. You see, DADT was never more than a toothless dog. The real problem lies in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Today, even with DADT repealed, LGBT individuals can still be discharged for simply being themselves. Sure, as a homosexual you can tell everyone without fear of punishment but I don't recommend you let anyone find out you're engaging in sexual activities as such, because under the UCMJ.. you are exhibiting conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, which you can be discharged for.

Also if someone signed up under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, it actually protected their careers, because once they "came out", then they were subject to the UCMJ under Article 83 for Fraudulent Enlistment, Article 125 for Sodomy, Article 133 for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman (which also includes all ranks and females), Article 134-9 for wrongful cohabitation (if they were living with their lover), Article 134-19 for False Swearing under oath that they swore not to LIE and that all enlistment information was true to the best of their knowledge, and Article 134 for General acts that disrupt the good order and discipline of the armed forces, or brings discredit to the armed forces. So anyone already in the military who comes out with the repeal of DADT immediately can be charged under Article 77..

What's basically happened here is a whole lot of hype, but very little actual change. I'm sure it makes everyone feel good to know that DADT is now gone but I can assure you that the -Real- problems are still very much there. Until the UCMJ is revised, there is no way in hell I would consider outing myself as a member of the armed forces..

I served in the US Navy in the 1990s, and you can be damn sure I guarded my status like my life depended on it ever single day.

 

Transgendered folks cannot follow the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care in the military because you do not get to live as your preferred sex for the Real Life experience. Your gender preference is considered just that - a preference.

Unlike in civilian life, in the military you can't dress as your preferred sex or act as your preferred sex without breaking military codes of conduct, making the Year Life experience moot in the armed forces; there's no way to document that you've been living as the opposite gender because military custom dictates that men be treated as men and women be treated as women. The military is extremely genderized.

Which still doesn't answer the argument, "So why should we spend millions of dollars buying small barracks especially for transgendered soldiers when we don't have the money to properly outfit the soldiers we already have?"

Taxpayers don't want to buy all new shower stalls, unisex bathrooms, etc...especially if the trans issue does not pertain to them at all. They see it as special privilege to redesign the entire military housing construct to suit 1% of the population. And gay/lesbian soldiers require no such restructure.

I'm not saying I don't think transgendered people should be allowed to serve openly - in a perfect world, they would - I'm just saying as an economic conservative who recognizes that we're losing a two-front war that I think some of the arguments people have against it make sense, given our current circumstances in the armed forces.

I actually read that they're revising the UCMJ to reflect DADT repeal, so this shouldn't be an issue.