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.

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. 

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.