It's All Good, But We Need More!

Over the past few days, I’ve written about the most transgender-inclusive companies and the events that seem to be leading toward ending the ban on transgenders serving in the US Armed Forces.

While those are welcome developments, they also indicate how much more needs to be done to approach equality.

For one thing, not everyone—trans or cis, straight or gay, male or female—is suited (pardon the pun) to work in a large corporation or to be in the military.  Even those who have the skills, education, talents and temperament to work in such environments may not want to do so.  I think that anyone who has something to contribute should find the best avenue for it.  And I think that many of understand that not all necessary change comes from working within established institutions or power structures.

Perhaps more to the point, though, it seems to me that the changes corporations are making, and the ones the Armed Forces seem to be in the process of making, will benefit those who are already in those organizations and are embarking upon a gender transition.  I’m not sure that much will change for those who have lost jobs, or never had jobs in the first place, because of gender identity or expression.  How does the new protocol at Company X or in the Army help young trans women or men who are homeless or doing sex work because their family disowned them or bullies drove them out of school?

Also, I can’t help but to think that most trans people who will benefit from the latest developments are white and come from at least middle-class backgrounds.  To be fair, this is probably more true for the corporate world than for the military.  But even in the uniformed services, most who would be in a position—that is, those who have attained enough seniority and rank—to serve openly without reprisal are white college graduates.     

So, while I am glad that corporations and the Armed Forces are trying to be more open to diversity, I don’t think those who are making the decisions realize how their efforts are skewed—and how much more needs to be done.  For that matter, I don’t think most of the public does, either.

The Sequel To Caitlyn?

Seeing that portrait of Caitlyn Jenner on the cover of Vanity Fair was great.

I think I've just found what--or, more precisely, who--I want to see next on the mag:

 


I know:  It looks like a promo for a Baywatch sequel.  I dare someone to make such a program--and make Shane Ortega the star of it.

He's one of the few transgender soldiers currently serving in the Army.  He's served two combat tours in Iraq and another in Afghanistan, and is now a Chinook helicopter crew chief for the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii.  

But he's hanging on for dear life in the Army in spite of the rave reviews he's received.  You see, his records identify him as female.  Like nearly all other transgender soldiers, he's served in secret--until recently.  With his record and the respect he's garnered, he felt he "had to be the one" to call attention to the situation of transgendered service members.

So, even though Ash Carter is assembling a working group that will, more than likely, establish guidelines to allow transgenders to serve in the Armed Forces, there is still the possiblity Ortega could be kicked out.

Being in the spotlight, he's following the Army's rules to a "T".  That means, among other things, wearing the skirt and blouse--which barely fit him now--of the women's dress uniform on those occasions that call for it.  It's "uncomfortable and humiliating", he says.  But, he explains, "I have to prove a point. I'm doing everything they ask me to do."

Really...After three combat tours, what else can they ask of him?  But whatever they ask, he'll do.  And, hopefully, he won't have to do those things anymore.  

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.

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.  

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.