Defense Secretary Announces Plan Aimed At Lifting Transgender Ban

Ever since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed, the US Armed Forces has had only one ban based on gender or sexuality: the one that keeps transgenders from serving.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter says this ban is "outdated".  He is assembling a working group that will determine whether lifting the ban will have any impact on the Forces' combat-readiness.  Carter says that the group is beginning with the assumption that trans people should be able to serve openly "without adverse effects on military readiness and effectiveness, unless and except where practical, objective impediments are identified."


His plan give branches of the Armed Forces time to work through legal, medical and administrative issues and develop training to ease transition.  Senior leaders believe six months will be sufficient time for this process.

During that time, trans people still won't be allowed to join the military.  However, any decisions to force out those already enlisted will be referred to Brad Carson, Carter's personnel undersecretary and the leader of the working group.

What "Other Than Honorable" Means

Today is Memorial Day here in the US.

Last night, I listened to a radio program in which the host brought up a little-discussed point:  When “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was in effect, many LGBT members of the Armed Forces received “other than honorable” discharges.  According to this host, there are estimated to be about 50,000 such former service members here in New York City alone.

As some of you know, getting an other-than-honorable discharge has all sorts of consequences.  It can prevent you from getting certain jobs.  Worse yet, it can prevent you from getting certain services you might need from the Armed Forces as well as city, state and the Federal government.   And, although nobody has an exact number, nobody doubts that at least some of those veterans are homeless as well as jobless as a result of their discharges.

Army Chipping Away At Transgender Ban

Could it be that a tide is eroding discriminatory laws and policies?  

(If it is, what were those laws and policies made of?)

While transgenders aren't allowed--yet--to serve in any branch of the US Armed Forces, the day we are allowed in might be in sight.

Last month, the Army approved of hormone treatments for Chelsea Manning, the transgender soldier charged with divulging classified documents to WikiLeaks.  Around the same time Air Force Secretary Deborah James said that she favors lifting the ban against letting transgenders serve.  And Ashton Carter, the new Defense Secretary, said he is "open minded" about transgender troops, adding that whether or not a person can serve should be based on nothing more than his or her ability to serve.  According to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, President Obama endorsed Carter's comments.

Now the Army has issued a directive saying to protect transgender soldiers from being dismissed by mid-level officers. Instead, the decision to discharge is placed in the hands of the service's top civilian for personnel matters.

In essence, it means that any officer would have to explain his or her decision to discharge a transgender soldier to a high-ranking civilian leader.  Most officers would be reluctant to do that, as it can be damaging to their careers.   
What's interesting is that the Army is doing essentially the same thing the Pentagon did when it was backing away from "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":  It required a review, by the Department of Defense's top lawyer and service secretaries, of decisions to discharge gay and lesbian soldiers.  As a result, no more gay and lesbian soldiers were dismissed and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was overturned.

The times, they are a-changing.

Lifting The Ban: Will It Fly?

The day when transgenders can serve in the US Armed Forces seems to be drawing closer.  Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James says as much.  The ban on transgender people in the military "is likely to come under review in the next year or so," she says.  "Times change."

When asked whether dropping the ban will affect military readiness, she had this to say:  "From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve."

While lesbians, gays and bisexuals were able to "fly under the radar" (pun intended) during the days of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", transgenders did not have such an option.  Even those who'd already had the surgery and were living full-time in the gender of their minds and spirits are not allowed to enlist; the military could find such information easily enough even if would-be enlistees did not disclose it themselves.  And, of course, declaring one's self trans and starting a gender transition while in uniform is grounds for being discharged, most likely dishonorably.

Somehow I'm not surprised that Ms. James is the first secretary of a branch of the Armed Forces to voice support for transgenders joining the military.  For one thing, of the twenty-three people who have held her current position, she is only the second woman.    She is also the only female secretary of any branch of the armed forces.




Also, I think her statements might be motivated by the possibility that, of all of the branches of the Armed Forces, the Air Force could benefit most from allowing transgenders to join.  We (I mean transgenders) are a community of extremes:  We have the highest levels of kids who drop out of school because they were bullied--and the unemployment and homelessness that too often result from it-- but a higher percentage of us than of the general population earn college degrees.  The Air Force was probably the first of all branches to recruit significant numbers of people with bachelor's or higher degrees; if I'm not mistaken, one has to have a college degree in order to fly.  And, contrary to some commonly-held stereotypes, many trans people have training, or work, in technical and scientific fields.  It just happens that the AF is more dependent on people with scientific and technological skill than any other branch of service.

Whether or not that was her motivation, I applaud Ms. James for making her statement.  Although I don't generally encourage people to join the military, it is a part of our world and offers one of the few opportunities for stable employment and advancement to many young people from less-than-privileged backgrounds.  And there are trans people, just as there are other people, who want to serve their country and believe that joining the military is the best way to do so.

Don't Tell, Don't Transition--Not Yet, Anyway

Even after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," transgender people who live--and want to serve--in the gender of their mind and spirit aren't allowed to be in the Armed Forces.  A trans person who begins his or her transition is supposed to be discharged, under current rules.

However, there is a widespread expectation that the ban will soon be repealed.  As a result, Captain Sage Fox, who had been an Army Reservist for fourteen years, received a call she hadn't anticipated:  a call from her commander telling her that she could continue to serve in her preferred gender.  She would even have permission to be called "ma'am" and use the female latrine.

Or so she--and her commander--thought.

A short time later, her orders were reversed.  She wasn't exactly discharged, at least as the Army defines it.  Instead, she was placed on Individual Ready Reserve, meaning that she could be called back to duty but, in the meantime, would not show up for training, draw a paycheck or have access to benefits. 

In other words, the Army was, essentially, disowning her without discharging her, leaving her in a career and legal limbo.  So, trans people are being advised not to come out because of scenarios like Captain Fox's.

Or that of someone named "Hunter", who is transitioning to male.  Even though his hair is short and testosterone has done its work on him, he still has to use a female latrine (which causes women to flee) and, when attending formal dinners at the officer's school, wear a form-fitting jacket and skirt.

The question of allowing trans people to serve as who they are is much greater than it seems:  Our estimated population of 15,000 in the Armed Services actually represents a somewhat higher percentage than in the population as a whole.  Many serve for years, or even decades (as Captain Fox did) before having their "epiphanies" that cause them to begin psychotherapy, hormones and the other aspects of a gender transition. 

The irony is that trans men and trans women are drawn to enlist for essentially the same reasons.  One, of course, is job prospects. But another is the hypermasculine culture of the military.  To a non-trans person, it makes sense in the case of female-to-male transgenders.  But male-to-females also want to be in such an environment as a way (that ultimately doesn't work) of suppressing their femaleness or, at least, accentuating maleness they may or may not have.  In other words, it's the same sort of impulse that drives some to become police officers or firefighters. (My therapist told me she's treated a number of male-to-female trans people who worked in those professions, as well as the military.)  It's also the same sort of impulse that led people like me to spend lots of time in sports and physical training--or any number of closeted or manque gay men to marry women. 

Some of us (male-to-females) are also motivated by a "desire to serve our country", in the misguided way we're taught to understand it.  Again, just like our female-to-male bretheren.  And gay men.  And lesbians.  And straight people.





 

Like Being A Nazi--Or In The KKK

"Coming out" is just like declaring that you're a Nazi, a member of the Ku Klux Klan--or a rapist.

At least, that's what the late General Carl E. Mundy believed.  In 1993, not long after Bill Clinton was elected to his first term, the General--who was then Commandant of the Marine Corps--and the President met with Vice President Al Gore and other White House officials to discuss the issue of gays in the military.  

Not long after that meeting, the Clinton administration would implement "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a policy that, it seemed, made no one happy. (Some might say that's the definition of a compromise.)  To be fair, it might have been the best anyone could do.  After all, Mundy was not alone among the military's top brass in his opposition to letting gays serve, and the military probably could not continue its old policy of banning gays outright.  

DADT was finally repealed in 2010.  

This note from the 1993 meeting was among 10,000 pages of notes released yesterday by the William J. Clinton Presidential library:

How We Can Truly Serve Our Country--And World

I have written about Chuck Hagel's declaration that the ban against transgenders in the military should be "reviewed" and that "every qualified American who wants to serve our country should have the opportunity if they fit the qualifications and can do it."

I have also written, in numerous posts, about my attitude toward legalizing same-sex marriage:  I am glad that it's happening, but I think that the government's role in deciding who can marry should be limited to establishing a minimum age.  And churches or other religious institutions should not be vested with the power to confer legally-married status on any two people.  In other words, the government should do no more than to grant civil unions to any two people of the age of consent who want to be together.  Then, the couples can decide whether they want to marry in a church or whatever.

Why am I mentioning that in the context of transgender people serving in the military?  Well, my attitude about getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the possibility of doing the same for the ban on transgenders is very similar:  I'm glad it's happening, but I also think there has to be an even more fundamental change.

I have long believed that the human race will advance only if we get rid of war.  If we don't, we'll die.  All of us.  If anything, we should be discouraging people from joining the Armed Forces and finding ways to put their--our--talents and skills to use to save our planet and better ourselves.  That will happen only when people respect each other's differences and stop exploiting or killing each other over them.  For what is war but the ultimate expression of a person's--or a group of people's--disrespect for the sanctity and individuality of another?

Transgenders should be the first people to understand what I've said in the previous paragraph.  And I think we should be in the forefront of teaching and showing respect for people's differences.  Doing so would preclude joining the military:  After all, what effaces a person's individuality more than becoming part of "the big green fighting machine"?

We need to find better ways of escaping poverty, paying for college or getting a good health plan--and to redefine what it means to "serve" one's country or community.  That said, I want to take this opportunity to remember those who have sacrificed portions of their lives--or their very lives--for what we now think of as service to our country.  As we now know, among them are many transgender people who camouflaged themselves, went "stealth" or however you want to describe their efforts to fit into a country's notion of what it means to serve--or simply have a job. 

What Chuck Hagel Still Needs To Understand

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently said the ban on transgenders serving in the US military "continually should be reviewed.

He hasn't stated that the ban should be lifted. However, he has stated his belief that "every qualified American who wants to serve our country should have the opportunity if they fit the qualifications and can do it".

So far, so good, right?  Well, it is, except when you consider what he said about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Letting gays, lesbians and bisexuals serve in the military is all well and good, he opined, but that the issue of transgenders serving is "more complicated" because sometimes we "require medical attention" that can't always be provided in the remote (or "austere", as he put it) locations  in which armed forces members often find themselves.

Now, some of you might say, "He has a point".  And you'd be right.  What if I were in some desolate area of, say, Afghanistan and ran out of my prescribed hormones?  Or, more important, what if the medical supervision needed to ensure safe hormonal therapy wasn't available.  Then, of course, there is the question of what to do if someone in such a setting were to develop complications related to surgery or other aspects of transitioning.

I would like to say that it should be possible to overcome such difficulties.  It probably is, but I couldn't tell you how.  Nor, for that matter, could most health care providers.

At least, most in this country couldn't.  I'm guessing that, perhaps, someone in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada or Israel has answers to those questions:  Those nations allow trans people to serve in their Armed Forces.

But having to consider that question leads to another:  Is transgenderism primarily a medical condition?  Or, at any rate, should it be classified as such?  Almost all current definitions used by health care and insurance providers, as well as researchers and policy-makers, are based on medical and physiological criteria, and the "treatments" are pharmacological and surgical ones.  

While some trans people exhibit physical traits and mannerisms of the "opposite" sex, being trans is as much a state of mind and spirit.  Some would argue, as I would, that a trans person doesn't become trans by putting on the clothes of the "opposite" gender, taking hormones or getting surgery.  Doing such things merely allows trans people to live more easily as their true selves.  At least, it does for some:  There are trans people who don't do any of those things but live as the gender in which they identify, whether or not their physical characteristics and behaviors conform to their culture's ideas about maleness or femaleness, or of masculinity and femininity.

Thus, some trans activists like Pauline Park denounce the "medicalization" of transgenderism.  She, and her fellow activists (including yours truly) believe that people should be allowed to live as the gender to which they identify, whether or not they choose, or are able to, take hormones or undergo gender reassignment surgery.   Some cannot afford the surgeries or even lack medical insurance; others are unable to avail themselves to those options because of other medical conditions.  Still others simply do not want to risk the possible complications of hormones and surgeries.  Ms. Park thinks--as I do--that no one should feel forced to do these procedures simply to have the right to live and work as his or her true self.

But the ability to get coverage for hormones and surgeries--to those employers and insurers who offer it--and the struggle for equality has been predicated on the notion that transgenderism is mainly, if not entirely, a medical condition.  While that may have helped to decriminalize wearing the clothes of the "opposite" gender or remove a little bit (though certainly not much) of the stigma attached to being a trans person, it also limits us.  And it will limit the military, who will deny themselves some talented, intelligent individuals who want to live as the women or men they actually are rather than by the "M" or "F" that was checked off on their birth records.  That is what Chuck Hagel and the military brass need to understand in "reviewing" the ban against transgenders serving in the military.

Why Did The Boy Scouts Decide To Admit Gay Youth?

As you may have heard by now, the Boy Scouts of America will allow openly gay boys to join as the new year begins.

What I find interesting is that a number of news reports have likened this policy to the abolition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military.  Such a comparison is, on one hand, nearly fatuous, but on the other, relevant.

The repeal of DADT meant that openly homosexual people could serve, as enlisted members or officers, in any branch of the Armed Forces.  On the other hand, the new Scout policy does not allow openly gay adults to serve as Scoutmasters:  It only allows gay youngsters to become Scouts.  Moreover, it does not prevent churches and other organizations from withdrawing their sponsorship of troops.  More than one report indicates that the main ecumenical organizations, such as the Mormon Church (which is the largest sponsor) or the Catholic Church, are unlikely to do so although individual parishes or churches may.  And, most parents who don't like the idea of gay kids becoming scouts have already enrolled their own sons in conservative alternatives like Trail Life.

But the comparison with the repeal of DADT is interesting and relevant because Lord Baden-Powell started Scouting over a century ago for the purpose of preparing boys for the military.  Some would argue that it has always been a sort of paramilitary organization.  I would agree, at least in the sense that it is organized and in the titles it uses.  Also, some of the skills taught are among those required of soldiers, sailors and the like.  Then again, I would guess that the vast majority of Scouts do not join the Armed Forces when they come of age.

Another interesting parallel with the repeal of DADT is this:  Just as transgender people still can't serve in the military, they can't become Scoutmasters or Scouts.

The most interesting question, I think, is:  What motivated the BSA to change their policy?  Some might say it's the increased acceptance of LGBT people:  After all, Utah--of all states--just struck down its ban on gay marriage.  I wouldn't doubt that's a factor, but the cynic in me thinks that something else is at work.

An in-law of mine spent a number of years in the administrative offices of the Boy Scouts.  This in-law's job and the jobs of others in those office were rendered obsolete by the rapidly-declining numbers of boys (and girls) who were becoming (and remaining) Scouts. A number of factors conspired to shrink the rolls:  declining birth rates, the increased number of activities available to young people and, perhaps, the image of scouting.  As to the latter:  Among the many colleagues, acquaintances and friends I count in the worlds of academia and the arts, not one has a child who is or was a Scout.  In those circles, even the kids who like camping, hiking and such don't join.  It seems that in the worlds I inhabit--and in large coastal cities like the one in which I live--nearly all kids who are interested in scouting come from low- or lower middle-income backgrounds and from families and communities that include few people with advanced educations.  But those young people don't join because the cost, while low compared to other activities, is still prohibitive.

The part of me that asks "Cui bono?" believes that the Boy Scouts of America finally decided to accept gay boys because, frankly, they're trying to enroll any new members they can find.  My in-law said that some in the organization have even questioned whether or not the BSA would survive, at least in its current form, unless it could find new members.

Whatever its motivations, I'm glad the BSA decided to enter the 21st Century.  There will be some issues to iron out, such as that of shared facilities.  There will also be some reports of harassment, but I have little doubt that such things go on now unless things have changed drastically since I was a Scout more years ago than I care to admit.  But I think those issues will be resolved.  Still, I have to wonder--as I did when DADT was repealed--whether the new policy would actually leave gay members more vulnerable to harassment because they were "out" and no one could pretend otherwise.  After all, we all know how cruel young people, particularly adolescents, can be to each other, especially if one doesn't fit the sometimes-unarticulated expectations about gender and sexuality.  I don't think boys have stopped picking on "sissies" or simply those who are quiet and sensitive since I received such treatment about four decades ago. 

Then again, the new policy could present a new learning opportunity for such boys, especially if they have a scoutmaster who is a strong leader and doesn't tolerate bullying--or, perhaps, might have been one of those boys who might have been bullied.

Veterans' Day

To me, this day--Veteran's Day--is one of the most important.  I honestly would give up Christmas to celebrate this day.

Mind you, I think the most important thing the human race could do is to end war.  A good part of our income inequalities and problems with environmental degradation have to do with preparation for, not to mention the fighting of, wars.  And the culture of violence, I believe, contributes to the oppression of (and, naturally, violence against) women and men who don't fit into this culture's concept of masculinity.

That said, this country should honor its veterans--but not in that chest-thumping, rah-rah kind of way we see in parades and exhibitions of military might.  Such celebrations are all predicated on a mythology about this country's military history:  that all of our wars were just, and we never lost any of them. (Korea was a "stalemate" and we got out of Vietnam before the Vietcong could claim victory over American forces.)  But, I believe the veterans should be honored, not celebrated, for their sacrifices--including, in some cases, their lives--for conflicts to which they were conscripted or in which they joined without realizing how misguided (or simply mendacious) the motives were of those who led us into war.

At the same time, we need to remember that even though "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been repealed, transgender people still cannot serve in the Armed Forces.  

A Band Of (Trans) Brothers--And Sisters

While the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been applauded, mostly for the right reasons, transgenders are still not allowed to be uniformed members of the Armed Forces.  

Meanwhile, civilian employees of the Armed Forces are allowed to transition if they are already employees.  What's not widely known is that Amanda Simpson, whom President Obama appointed as the Senior Technical Advisor to the Commerce Department shortly after he was elected to his first term, is a civilian military employee.  She had transitioned years before her appointment to that post.

Another civilian employee, not nearly as well-known, is in the process of transitioning.  However, that employee also happens to be an Army Reserve sergeant. 

But there's another twist that few anticipated:  As a civilian employee, this person is male.  However, for Army drills and physicals, it's necessary to bring out "whatever I can muster that's feminine".   So, while his civilian colleagues relate to him as the man he is, he must--as he admits--lie to his fellow soldiers.   

Now, some might say that he should be content with being a civilian military employee.  However, he says, "My father was a soldier.  I wanted to come home in a uniform like him".  He was able to do that after a deployment to Iraq.  While "coming home in a uniform" (Thankfully, it wasn't a body bag!) fulfilled one dream, it left him with the yearnings of another:  He realized he had to "come out" and transition.

He hopes that one day soon the Armed Forces' ban against transgenders will be lifted.  In the meantime, he says, he has a network of about 300 female-to-male transgenders who are a "band of brothers" supporting each other "in a battle nobody knows we're fighting".

While I don't generally encourage young people to join the military unless they, well, want to be in the military (and aren't enlisting merely to "pay for school", learn a trade, "see the world", please members of their families and communities or fulfill some vague notion like "serving my country"), and wouldn't join the military even if I could, I think the ban against trans people is absurd.  After all, the traits that make a person good soldiers, sailors, flyers or officers don't change as a person transitions from one gender to another. A male-to-female might lose some physical strength, but--let me tell you--you've got to be pretty damned tough to make the transition.  Also, while a certain amount of stamina is necessary, today's military doesn't depend as much on brute strength as the forces of old.  And, if someone could hack the physical training and the rigors of combat as a "woman", I don't see why he couldn't as a man.

Most important of all, though, is something the female-to-male civilian employee/reservist mentioned:  integrity.  In battle, or in any other stressful situation, people who are fighting or simply working together toward the same goal will not succeed unless they can trust one another.  I should think that someone who is completely honest about him or her self is more likely to deserve and gain the trust of the men and women by his or her side, or under his or her command.

A General Supports A Transition In Australia

Yesterday I wrote about someone who defended the rights of transgender prisoners in New Zealand.  Today, I'm going to remain in the same part of the world, if you will--and show another example of an enlightened attitude toward transgender people.

Lieutenant Colonel Cate McGregor of the Australian Defense Force wrote a stirring speech for her supervisor, Lietenant General David Morrison.  That, in itself, may not seem remarkable:  After all, who can feel more righteous indignation over sexism in the military than someone who's experienced it.  Also, Lt. Col. McGregor is a world-renowned cricket writer.

What makes this story so--well, moving--is, aside from Lt. Gen. Morrison's delivery of the speech, the incidents that prompted it, and courageous actions he took in response to them.

Apparently, an army e-mail ring distributed degrading images of women--both in and out of the military--who, they believed, could be exploited for sex.  Morrison said, in no uncertain terms, that there is "simply no place" for such sexism, or bigotry of any kind.  "Those who think it's OK to behave in a way that demeans or exploits their colleague have no place in this army," Morrison warned his troops by video.  Then, he advised, "Show moral courage and take a stand against it."

Before making that speech, he actually did what he expected the people under his command to do.  You see, Cate McGregor was actually given the name Malcolm at birth and joined the Army under that name.  When she "came out" to Morrison, she tendered her resignation because she didn't want to "cause embarrasment" to his office.

What was Morrison's response? "I want you to know that I'm privileged that you could tell me about the crisis you're facing and I will be with you every step of the way."

When an American military commander can say something like that to a service member under his or her command, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will finally be complete.  Until then, we will have to look to countries like Australia to find commanders like Morrison who realize that they need every good soldier, sailor, airman/woman or other service member they can get, and that the military can't survive as a "demographic ghetto" or "a smokestack industry in a changing world."

In a way, none of this is surprising.  After all, in the Gallipoli Campaign of World War I, both the British and the Ottomans realized that the Australians knew what it took to train good soldiers and build a good fighting force.  Both sides respected their prowess.  Now the whole world can respect the judgment of folks like Lieutenant General Morrison.

Who Knew We Had Such Power?

Perhaps if you're old like me (Well, all right, you don't have to be that old!), you remember some of the arguments against same-sex marriage and letting gay couples adopt children.  

One of the classic arguments is that gay parents would make gay kids.  It's amazing how many otherwise sensible people parroted that line, even though it was one of the easiest pieces of wisdom to dismiss:  All of those gay people who wanted to get married and adopt kids were themselves the children of straight parents.

Listen:  If I have the power to make some kid trans--or, for that matter, gay or straight--I really am in the wrong business!

Seriously, it's funny, when you think about it, that people should whip up such hysteria about gay men, lesbians or trans people by imputing to us powers we never knew we had.

The latest example of that comes from Jerry Boykin, a vice president of the Family Research Council. He claims that the recent spike in the number of reported sexual assaults in the military happened because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed.

However, this is no mere silly accusation. Mr. Boykin bases his assertion on the erroneous (or deliberately misleading) assumption that more men than women are being assaulted in the military.

Now, even if that were the case, it wouldn't be a result of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.  First of all, how would allowing lesbians in the military cause more men to sexually assault other men?   But, even more to the point, Mr. Boykin perpetuates a misperception about men who rape other men (or boys):  the perpetrators are gay men. While that may be true in some cases, most of the time it isn't.  In fact, most men who rape other men or boys are like the ones who sexually assaulted me as a boy and a young man:  They were older or had some sort of power or authority over me, and they didn't have committed intimate relationships with men.  I can state these facts with certainty because the men who sexually assaulted me were not strangers:  In fact, I knew them well.  One was a cadet commander of my ROTC class; he took advantage of me when we were in the woods during a training weekend.

But, according to reports, more females than males have been sexually assaulted, even though women make up only about a quarter of the Armed Forces overall.  Once we realize this, Mr. Boykin's claim becomes even more absurd (or even more of a bald-faced lie).  How in the world could bringing openly gay men (or, for that matter, lesbians) cause an increase in the number of men who sexually assault  women in the military?  I admit that I'm not a sexologist or psychologist, so perhaps my means of understanding the phenomenon are limited.  If you can explain how gays cause men to assault women, please do so. Just keep it simple!  And, while you're at it, perhaps you can explain to me how I (or any other LGBT person) have the power to make a kid gay, straight or trans.

Autumn Sandeen's Season

If you know anything about transgender activism, you probably have heard of Autumn Sandeen.  In 2001, she retired after a two-decade career with the Navy.  Of course, the military has never classified her as "she" or idenitified her by her true name--until this week.  

For the first time in the history of the US Armed Forces, the gender change of one of its servicemembers was recognized.  After a battle that lasted nearly two years, the Navy finally changed Ms. Sandeen's records to reflect her true gender.  

Of course, she still could not serve in the Navy, or any other branch of the military, today.  Lifting the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy did not affect trans people, and we are still excluded from serving.

Some believe that this, and the fact that the DSM will no longer classify transgenderism as a mental illness, as signs that trans people may be allowed to serve openly, and not have to resort to hiding their identity, as Ms. Sandeed did for more than two decades.

What The Repeal Of DADT Won't Change

When "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed, I pointed out--on this blog and to people I know--that it wasn't an unmitigated victory for LGBT who are in, or want to join, the military.

For one thing,  I expressed concerns that DADT's repeal could actually make LGBT people in the military more vulnerable to sexual, and other kinds of, harassment than they were when DADT was the official policy.  Under DADT, some gay servicemembers were "flying under the radar," so to speak, and other servicemembers could only make assumptions about the sexual orientation (or, in some cases, gender identity) of other servicemembers.  No one wants to go through the embarrassment and humiliation, not to mention the legal problems, that could stem from assuming that someone was gay and harassing him or her.  With DADT gone, gay servicemembers can be more easily identified--and harassed or worse.

Also, the repeal of DADT did not clear the way for transgender people to serve in the Armed Forces.   One who identifies as such cannot join; anyone who comes to identify as such, and begins a gender transition, after enlisting is not allowed to remain in uniform.

There is still another problem that the repeal of DADT didn't, and couldn't, address:  The culture of the armed forces is not, and probably never will be, tolerant, much less accepting, of people who are not identifiably heterosexual and cisgender.  The very sorts of traits and values valued and promoted by and in the military are not exactly hospitable to diversity in gender expression and sexuality.  Plus, the emphasis on creating "traditional" families (ironic, when you consider that military families have some of the highest rates of divorce) will probably ensure that the military brass won't be welcoming toward LGBT people.  That Pentagon computers block any website they deem to be LGBT-friendly, while allowing unfettered access to such as Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, ought to tell you something about the military commanders' real attitudes toward LGBTs.

Plus, I'm not optimistic about the outlook for LGBT people in the military now that almost everyone expects Senator Chuck Hagel to be nominated as Secretary of Defense. While he says he is "committed to LGBT military families", his track record suggests otherwise.  In 1998, he opposed then-President Bill Clinton's nomination of James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg on the grounds that Hormel was "aggressively gay"--which, according to Hagel, would prove an impediment to doing the job.  He finally apologized for his slur two weeks ago.  But he still hasn't apologized for derogatory comments he made about Congressional Representative Barney Frank.  

I'm waiting to see just how "committed" Sen. Hagel will be to LGBT military families.  

She Knows Why It Wasn't Enough To Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Obama's repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hasn't been as complete a victory as some LGBT activists and their allies might believe.

For one thing, I have read and heard stories of increased harassment since gay people were allowed to serve openly.  Some incidients have included slurs and threats.  But almost as pernicious, and more insidious, are the taunts and baiting directed at uniformed men and women believed to be gay.  It places the victim in a double-bind:  If he or she takes the bait, abuse and worse follow.  But if he or she doesn't take the bait, the baiting escalates or the baiter grows angry and hostile.  It's probably even worse if the person who's being baited is, in fact, not gay or lesbian.  

Having been subjected to such baiting, I understand how that can break someone's mind and spirit.  I nearly quit school several times because of it.

But  are two other reasons why getting rid of DADT isn't the be-all and end-all in achieving legal protection, if not respect or equality, for non-heterosexual, non-cisgendered people in the Armed Forces.

One reason is that another piece of legislation passed during the Clinton Administration:  the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.  As long as it is in effect, same-sex partners or spouses of uniformed serivce members still can't receive the benefits to which the wives of servicemen or the husbands of servicewomen are entitled.  So, even if, say, a sailor married her girlfriend in New York, the sailor's wife is on her own when it comes to health insurance, and she will not receive any benefits if the sailor is killed while on duty.

The other reason why ending DADT isn't enough has to do with the last letter in the LGBT equation.  (Have you ever noticed that "T" always comes last in it?)  Transgenders do not benefit in any way from the demise of DADT.  We still cannot join the Armed Forces if we have begun or completed our transitions, and are still forced to resign if we are diagnosed and begin our treatments while still signed on.

Allyson Robinson knows that as well as anybody does.  She graduated from West Point in 1994 and commanded a Patriot missile unit in Europe and the Middle East before she resigned her commission.  She has been chosen to lead group that will be formed by the merger of OutServe (which an Air Force officer began anonymously when DADT was still in effect)  and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Upon her selection, Ms. Robinson said, "We cannot stop until we reach the day when all qualified Americans who wish to wear the uniform of our armed services have the opportunity to do so with honor and integrity--and without fear of discrimination or harassment--whether they are gay, bisexual or transgender."

Memorial Day Without DADT: No Difference For Transgenders

Today, Memorial Day, LGB people have one more right than they had at this time last year:  They can serve openly in the military.  During the past year, as you know by now, the odious "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy ended.


While I am glad to be rid of DADT, the new non-discrimination policy does not cover transgenders.  So, while a gay man, lesbian or bisexual can't be discharged or denied enlistment or promotion (at least not officially, anyway) on the basis of his or her sexual orientation, transgenders can't remain in the Armed Forces.  In fact, even expressing one's gender identity issues can keep a person who wants to enlist out of the Forces, and result in a discharge for someone who's already in.  And "coming out" after leaving or retiring from military service--as Autumn Sandeen did--can cause problems in dealing with the Veterans Administration.  


What makes changing the military's current ban on transgenders, or others with gender-identity "disorders", difficult is that the ban isn't a law.  It's a mandate defined in the Defense Department's "Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction in the Military Service." (See p. 33, paragraph 3-35.)  So it can't be ended by popular vote, or even a Congressional mandate.  Only the Pentagon can change it, and it's a body that doesn't tend to be swayed much by public opinion.  On the other hand, DADT was a Federal law and could, as such, be voted out of existence by Congress.




This isn't to say that the ban on transgender people won't be repealed.  I just think that it's going to be difficult, in part because we're a much smaller community than lesbians, gay men or bisexuals, but also because doing so will require a change in the administrative culture of the Armed Forces.  Having a President or other elected officials who favor such a change wouldn't hurt, but wouldn't, in and of itself, be enough.

Why They Should Say No To ROTC

A while back, I talked about the campaign to bring a Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program to York College.  


Well, it seems that York is not the only school where there's at least some interest in starting or restoring an ROTC program.  In spite of the media's portrayal of colleges as bastions of left-wing politics and anti-militarism, there has been more support for the programs--and the military in general--since 9/11.  Even in schools like Harvard, where the few students enrolled in ROTC have to go to other colleges for their "leadership" classes, some students and faculty members thank the ROTC cadets even though, as one pointed out, "we haven't served yet."


The support 9/11 has generated for the military seems to have been aided, at least on college campuses, by the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  However, no one should be fooled into thinking that the Armed Forces have suddenly become bastions of tolerance.  For one thing, we all know that a change in policy doesn't necessarily translate into a change in attitudes, let alone culture.  From what I have read and heard, homophobia is still just as strong as it's ever been, and known gays and lesbians face harassment and worse.  While it's been reported that the harassment that drove Army private Dan Chen to his suicide was motivated by bias against his ethnicity, there are also rumors that it was motivated by the perception of him as gay.


Even I have overstated the level of homophobia to be found in the military, there is still the fact that transgenders still aren't allowed serve.  At least, we can't transition while in uniform.  And, to the best of my knowledge, no branch of the Armed Forces will allow someone to enlist if he or she has already transitioned. 


Of course, there are other reasons not to have an ROTC program on a campus.   But if any school claims to support the rights of all, and to oppose discrimination, its administrators are being duplicitous, or simply hypocritical, in having the military in any form--including ROTC--on campus.

It Ain't Dead Yet

When you get to be my age, you realize there isn't an idea that's so bad that nobody will try to keep it alive.


In fact, if it's a bad enough idea, someone will try to cross-breed it with an equally bad, and outmoded, idea.


So, what's the bad idea that just won't go away?  Why, it's none other than our old friend, Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).


So who's breathing new life into it?  Someone of whom I hadn't heard until now: Oklahoma State Representative Mike Reynolds.  And what Mendelian scheme is he using to keep it alive?  Well, it looks like he's crossing DADT with the Grandfather Clause.


Oh, talk about a piece of legislation only a lawyer could love: The Grandfather Clause said that all men who were eligible to vote in 1867--the year before the reforms of Reconstruction took effect--or men who were lineal descendents of such men--were eligible to vote.  Most of the Southern States adopted it, in one form or another, during the last years of the 19th Century.  


Oklahoma, which didn't become a state until 1907, was late to that party.  However, Oklahoma lawmakers wasted little time in getting their own version of the Clause, which was enacted in 1910.  Oklahoma was in on the fun for only a few years, though:  In 1915, Guinn v. United States effectively struck down various States' Grandfather Clauses as unconstitutional.  


That didn't stop Oklahoma or any other state, though, from stopping blacks from voting:  They found all sorts of other ways, including poll taxes.


But I digress.  Folks like Reynolds know a bad old laws become good laws after a generation or two--especially when they're combined with bad, not-so-old, laws.  So, voila--He combines DADT with the Grandfather Clause, and what does he get?  The new law he's trying to get the state to enact:  People can serve in the Oklahoma National Guard only if they would have qualified for military service under the Federal laws that were in effect on 1 January 2009.


So, while the rest of the country is benighted by the repeal of DADT, good ol' Mike is trying to bring it back for Oklahomans.  By combining it with the Grandfather Clause--the way you combine fabrics or ingredients in a sandwich--he's trying to give his people a new, improved version of the law--or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell on steroids," as someone quipped.


Of course, I was happy when DADT was repealed.  But somehow I knew it wouldn't go away. For once, I wish I had been wrong.