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This isn't to say that the ban on transgender people won't be repealed.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.

More About ROTC At York

To follow up on my post from yesterday:  A professor who's involved with curriculum development says, in essence, that the ROTC program is being offered as a "minor" in "military leadership" and would not oblige the student to serve in the military.


Unless things have changed dramatically since I was in ROTC, that person doesn't know what she's talking about.  If they pay you, whether or not they give you a scholarship, you have a commitment to the military upon graduation.  The Armed Forces are like many other organizations:  They don't give you something without demanding something in return.


Now, I realize that there are some people whose calling, if you will, is the military.  To those people, I would say "go for it."  But to them, and anyone else who joins, I'd say that it's a "must" to read everything--including the fine print--before signing on.  Lots of people, particularly the young, hear only about the benefits, but don't realize that the military isn't just a way to pay for a college, and it isn't a job-training program.


And, of course, if they're anywhere on the LGBT spectrum, they should really think about why they're joining. 

ROTC At York: Who's Serving Whom?

Yesterday, I learned that there's talk about bringing an ROTC program to York College.


Since opening its doors in 1966, the college has not had such a program.  Some argue that it would open up job opportunities for students.  In this economy,that's no small consideration.


Also, there are more than a few veterans among the student body, as there are in most other CUNY schools.  However, the feeling among the student body, not to mention the faculty, is not as pro-military as one might expect.


I suspect that the Department of Defense is looking to York for two reasons.


First of all, the college has been expanding its programs in health-related sciences and professions.  So, perhaps, the Pentagon is looking at the college as a potential source of people who have at least some of the skills the military needs.


But second, and perhaps equally important, about 90 percent of its students are members of "minority" groups.  As much as it pains me to say it, the Armed Forces have offered more and better opportunities to "minorities"--particularly black men--than other areas of society and the economy.  That is not to say, of course, that there's no racism in the military.  It just means that one has a better chance of becoming a high-ranking officer than of becoming a CEO of a major corporation or university president if one does not come from the "right" families and schools.  And, of course, most who come from such backgrounds are white and well-off.  


Perhaps ROTC can present itself as a vehicle for equal opportunity if it comes to York. However, there's a problem I have with that.  While "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," may have been repealed, the military is a notorious hotbed of homophobia.  We've heard about Marine Lance Corporal Harry Lew, the son of parents who emigrated to New York's Chinatown, who committed suicide in Afghanistan because he was hazed so much, and so badly, by fellow Marines. The media have reported that the hazing was motivated by those Marines' prejudice against Asians like Lew.  However, I've heard rumors that the hazing was as much motivated by those Marines' suspicions that he was gay.  If that's the case, it wouldn't be the first time someone was so harassed and driven to suicide.


And, in addition to the residual homophobia that still exists in the military, there's the fact that transgender people aren't allowed to serve at all. And, of course, one won't remain a soldier, sailor, member of the Air Force or Marine for very long after starting to transition, or merely revealing a wish to do so.


So...I hope the college's administration and whoever else might be responsible for deciding on whether or not York gets an ROTC program to think about what they'd really be bringing to campus.

Yes, We're Guilty. Aren't We Always?

I was "surfing" the radio when I heard the tail end of what seemed to be one of those talk shows geared toward white men who want to turn the clock back to 1945 or thereabouts.  Some right-wing blowhard (Yes, there are left-wing blowhards, too.) said something to the effect that this country is "arguing about gay marriage and gays in the military when we're losing the country."


By "losing the country", I'm sure that he meant that more foreigners are "taking over."  He probably wouldn't care, except that he feels the "changes" are threatening his position, or at least what he fancies it to be, in this country.


How can anyone claim to love this country and say that liberty--at least for, ahem, certain groups of people--sometimes has to take a "back seat" in times of crisis?   I mean, I really don't understand how a debate over gays in the military could have caused, among other things, the stock market crash of 2008 or the subprime mortgage mess. 


Oh, what do I know?