The AMA Says There's No Reason To Keep Trans People Out Of Uniform

The American Medical Association isn't usually seen as a paragon of progressivisim, let alone a left-wing hotbed.  

So it's particularly noteworthy when they make pronouncements like this:  

RESOLVED. That our American Medical Association affirm that there is no medically valid reason to exclude transgender issues from service in the US Military

Wait--there's more:

and be it further RESOLVED. That our AMA affirm that transgender service members be provided care as determined by patient and physician according to the same medical standards that apply to non-transgender persons. 

That statement came at the end of a resolution drafted at their annual meeting in Chicago this past weekend.  There, four former US Surgeon Generals--Drs. Joycelyn Elders, David Satcher, Regina Benjamin and Kenneth Moritsugo--issued a statement urging the AMA to take a stand.    

The resolution stating that there's no medically valid reason to exclude transgenders from military service was unanimously approved by the AMA's policy-making House of Delegates.

As I've said in earlier posts, the bigots, haters and other ignorant people are running out of excuses!  

Embracing Herself And Losing The Job She Loved

Imagine doing something you love—your calling, as some of you might say—for years and years.  But all of that time you’re keeping a secret from others and lying to yourself. 

Finally, one day, you reveal that secret.  To be more exact, you stop wearing the mask and telling the lies you created in order to keep that secret a secret.  

That secret is not about a past crime or other indiscretion.  Rather, it’s what you’ve always known about yourself and it flies in the face of everything your friends, family and co-workers have always seen—or, at least, what you’ve allowed them so see.

You simply couldn’t keep that secret anymore.  It would have taken everything you could muster, if it hadn’t already:  Nothing is heavier than a secret.   Nobody is strong enough to keep it forever. 

So you let it go and take on the truth about yourself.  And you live it.  What next?

Well, depending on your situation, you might lose friends, family members—or even your job.

All of those things happen to too many of us after we start showing up for work, family gatherings, school or other aspects of our lives as the people we actually are.  Some of us are shunned; family members and friends decide we’re no longer good enough for them.  Some of us are humiliated and harassed on our jobs, the latter often being among the tactics used to push us out or get us to  quit.

Everything I’ve just described happened to Tamara Lusardi.  As a kid, she grew up on US Air Force bases around the world.  Then, for three decades, she worked for the US Army in various capacities and even served in the first Gulf War.  She found her niche as a software quality ensurance specialist for the Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center at the Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama.

But after she started her transition, superior officers limited her access to the women’s restroom, referred to her by male pronouns and her birth name and intentionally outed her.  While working as male, she was praised; after she came to work as a woman, she was removed from her post and her professional reputation was irreparably damaged.

Three years ago, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  On 1 April, the EEOC decided that her civil rights had been violated and that Army officers had created a hostile work environment when they subjected her to ridicule and embarrassment.

According to the Transgender Law Center, Army officials have 30 days to ask the EEOC to reconsider its ruling.  According to a spokesman, the Army will comply with the ruling.

Lusardi says she hopes this ruling will set a precedent that will make life easier for other transgender women and men.  On the other hand, she points out, many people still need to be educated about us and Federal policy still allows most healthcare insurers. to exclude transgender people.

N.B.  The article I linked was sent to me by my father.

Who's Against Letting Trans People Serve In The Armed Forces?

A few days ago, I compared the backlash that often follows progress to Newton's Third Law of Motion.

It seems the Armed Forces are manifesting that law again.  After Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said he's open to the idea of trans people serving in the military and Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James expressed her support of lifting the transgender ban, unnamed officials have expressed "concern" about allowing trans people to serve.

And what might those concerns be?  Apparently, they include some of the "usual suspects", if you will:

"Much of the opposition centers on questions of where transgender troops would be housed, what berthing they would have on ships, which bathrooms they would use and whether their presence would affect the ability of small units to work well together."

Housing?  Morale?  Haven't we heard those questions before--about women, blacks and gays?  And somehow those questions were worked out, I think.

And then there's that old familiar bugaboo--bathrooms.  Ah, yes, bathrooms. They're so powerful that they're keeping the mightiest, most technologically advanced fighting force in the history of the world from doing what Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom have done.  Yes, all of those countries allow trans people to serve openly in their Armed Forces.

Perhaps Israel's membership in this club is most ironic of all.  After all, some of the most pro-Israel lawmakers are also some of our most homophobic and transphobic. 

Perhaps they can explain how it's OK for this country to help pay the salaries of  transgenders in the Tzahal while keeping trans people out of our own armed forces.

A Blueprint For Bringing Transgenders Into The Armed Forces

It's looking more and more like transgenders will be allowed to serve in at least one branch of the US Armed Forces.

In August, the Palm Center--which has been doing some excellent and interesting work in the field of gender and sexuality in the military as well as other current issues--released the Report of the Planning Commission on Transgender Military Service.  It's definitely worth reading.

Israel To Help Transgender Recruits

Israeli has what may well be the tightest conscription laws in the world.  Essentially, every Israeli aged 18 and up is subject to be drafted into the Armed Forces unless he or she can prove a physical or mental disability or is a non-Druze Arab citizen.  Young Israelis typically receive their first draft notice at age 16.

(About twenty years ago, a co-worker of mine who was born in Israel but came to the US at age two went back to visit relatives.  He was just shy of 35 years old.  While waiting to board his flight back to New York, Israeli military police pulled him aside and said that he had to fulfill his requirement of military service.   Fortunately, he was able to prove that he was a US, not an Israeli, citizen.  Still, he nearly missed his flight.)

I won't get into a discussion of Israeli military policies:  That would take up this blog, and a few others!  However, I find it interesting that Israel was one of the first countries to allow gays and lesbians and, later, transgenders, to serve openly in the military.  And now the Israeli Defense Force is taking a step that may well be unprecedented anywhere in the world:  It has adopted a policy aimed, not only at helping transgenders already in the IDF, but also to assist draftees in their gender transitions from the time they receive their first draft notice.

Yes, you read that right:  The IDF will help draftees transition, fully or partially, upon entering the military service.  Teenagers who have not yet begun the process will be recruited according to the sex on their birth certificates but, upon enlisting, will receive assistance with everything they need for their transition--up to an including surgery--and will be addressed according to their preferred gender.

Now, some might say that the Israelis are making such a move out of necessity:  They live in a country about the size of New Jersey, there are about half as many of them as there are Jerseyites and the are surrounded by hostile countries whose populations far outnumber them.

Even if such is the case, the IDF is to be commended.  Probably more than in any other country in the world, military service means integration into society in Israel.  And allowing trans people to serve as the people they are is, in such an environment, a form of validation.

A Poster Girl For Equality In The Military

Here in New York, anyone with an IQ above room temperature realizes that one of our local newspapers, the Post, is nothing more than a print version of Faux, I mean Fox, News.

Wait a minute:  At least one Fox News anchor is coming to her senses.  Apres elle, la deluge.

Seriously, though:  Bad as FN and the Post are, there's a "news" source that makes them seem like Utne Reader and Mother Jones.

I'm talking about the Washington Times.  One of its reporters actually believes that a former Navy SEAL who transitioned is actually trying to fill the ranks of the Armed Forces with trans people.  The reporter in question is Bill Gertz, and the "mole" is Kristin Beck, who described her experiences in her book Warrior Princess.

OK, it's one thing to describe Ms. Beck as a "poster girl for a Pentagon effort to include transgenders". But it's still another to say that the effort to allow transgenders to serve in the military is another way Obama is pandering to "special interest groups".  

Special interest groups?  We just want to be who we are, and have the same rights as everyone else.  We want to live with the same confidence we won't be harassed, fired from our jobs, denied housing or slandered because of what we are that cisgenders, heterosexuals and white people enjoy.

As for the military:  Ms. Beck is simply asking this country's Armed Forces to do what nearly all of its counterparts in Western Europe, and Israel, already do: Allow all people an equal opportunity to serve as long as they have the wherewithal to do so. 

As for the Washington Times:  Its founders are in the wrong country, and its contributors and readers are in the wrong century:  The eighteenth ended more than three hundred years ago

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. 

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.

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.

When Pierre Is Allowed To Become Pauline But Can't Go Home

Imagine that you've just won the right to do something about which you've always dreamed--in this case, serving in the Armed Forces of your country.

Now, having become a soldier, sailor or member of your country's air force, imagine that you can't fly home to visit your family.

That is exactly the situation faced by transgender people in a Western country that's among the world's most respected, at least when it comest to human rights and general civility.

That country would be Canada.  Yes, the same country that had gay marriage before its powerful neighbor to the south.  Said neighbor still has it in only a few states, while the entirety of Canada--the second-largest nation on the planet--has it.

And Canada not only allows LGBT people to serve in its armed forces, it also allows members of the military who are making gender transition to wear the uniform of their "destination" gender.  So, if Pierre is in the process of becoming Pauline, he can wear Pauline's uniform even if he hasn't yet had surgery.

As far as I know, no other country has such a policy.   In the United States, transgenders still can't serve, at least not openly, in the military.  If they have been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder or have begun to transition, they can't join; if, once they're in, they visibly transition or reveal their identities, they can't stay.

Yet the same country that has no problem with transgenders serving in its armed forces has a policy that is, if unintentionally, as discriminatory against transgenders as anything its southern neighbor, and any number of other countries, have.

In July of 2011, Transport Canada instituted a rule stating that a passenger could be barred from boarding a plane if he or she doesn't appear to be the gender indicated on his or her passport.

Just for its sheer subjectivity alone, it's a terrible policy.  There are plenty of masculine-looking women and feminine-looking men, most of whom never thought about transitioning.  If this law can wreak havoc with them, imagine what it can do for any number of transgender people-- such as those who, for various reasons, never have the surgery or wait many years for it.

The argument made for this law--and the policies the US and other countries have regarding gender identity indicated on passports--goes something like this:  "Well, some suicide bomber might disguise pretend to be a woman to get on a plane." 

It's a silly--not to mention offensive--argument for any number of reasons.  First of all, suicide bombers, and terrorists generally, aren't people who try to "fly under the radar."  They are driven by some sort of rage or resentment, or out of  fervent (if twisted) political or religious beliefs that matter more to them than their own lives.  People who are about to blow themselves up for the sake of killing a bunch of other people aren't much concenred about whether or not they'll be found out.  If anything, they want to be known for committing the terrible deeds they plan to do.

Someone who is simply insane (which, according to some people, includes the would-be terrorists I've just mentioned) also isn't going to trouble him or herself with concealing his or her identity or carrying a false passport.

Also, consider the fact that someone who really wants to commit a terrible crime on a plane has to, well, get on the plane.  If he's carrying a false passport and is caught, that won't happen.  Most likely, he'll be arrested.  And, if he is caught wearing a dress and carrying a female passport that isn't his, he'll probably get the shit beaten out of him in the airport parking garage.

Now tell me, what self-respecting suicide bomber would do that?

I remember that when I first tried to get a new passport that indicated me as female,  the State Department gave, essentially, the reasons I just mentioned for denying me (as well as others in my situation).  Yet, one State Department representative with whom I spoke said that, to his knowledge, no terrorist had ever committed his or her deeds while presenting him or herself as a member of the other gender. 

Even one who could "pass" as a member of the other side is unlikely to represent him or herself as one in order to gain access to something and blow it up.  Even such people would have to spend a lot of time and money (As far as I know, Al Queda and Hamaz aren't paying for hormones or GRS.) to be a convincing member of the gender they were trying to represent.  And, if you're a male-to-female, the hormones rob you of a good part of your physical strength and quickness--not to mention that it's easier to do the sorts of things terrorists do in most men's than in most women's clothing!

So, what would-be terrorists Transport Canada expects to stop with such a policy is beyond me.  And, given the other laws Canada has, I rather doubt they were trying to exclude transgender people from boarding planes.  So what, exactly is the rationale for such a law?

Fortunately, there is a movement to repeal it.  I trust Canadians to have the good sense, and good will, to do so.  Hopefully, lawmakers in my country will start looking north for their cues.

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.