http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/20/low-ranking-for-usinfirstevergloballgbtmilitaryserviceindex.html
Dexter Mullins; Al-Jazeera America
The Hague Center for Strategic Studies, an independent research group of the Dutch Ministry of Defense, has released a ranking of countries based on their level of inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) service members in their armed forces. The global ranking is the first of its kind.
The top ranked countries on the list are New Zealand, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The United States is 40 out of 103 countries, behind Chile, Georgia and Cuba.
[. . .] the DOD does not allow transgendered people to serve in the military based on "medical standards for military service." Joshua Polchar said the U.S. is behind the rest of the world because of the policy.
The one thing I can say, though this isn't me supporting it or anything, but I can sort of see the reasoning behind the medical standards argument.
While deployed, access to medication and therapies are very low, they can have important life saving antibiotics and the like for wound care and such, but even something like having asthma excludes you, mostly because of the need of an inhaler and the likelihood, if deployed, of not having access to one when needed, is extremely high. (though I know asthma used to be an exclusionary medical condition for military service, not sure if that's changed over the years.)
As transmen and women, especially if transition, or have already transitioned, the constant need for hormones, especially for post-op individuals who are not longer producing their own hormones to take over if they don't have access to hormones can be bad. While that doesn't excuse the how low the US scored for Lesbians, gays and bisexuals as well, I do kinda see where they are coming from with the medical standards aspect, as if we are transitioning, we do need regular access to hormones.
That is my take on the medical exclusion at least, I could be completely off base here though.
Quote from: Colleen♡Callie on February 22, 2014, 10:25:24 PM
The one thing I can say, though this isn't me supporting it or anything, but I can sort of see the reasoning behind the medical standards argument.
While deployed, access to medication and therapies are very low, they can have important life saving antibiotics and the like for wound care and such, but even something like having asthma excludes you, mostly because of the need of an inhaler and the likelihood, if deployed, of not having access to one when needed, is extremely high. (though I know asthma used to be an exclusionary medical condition for military service, not sure if that's changed over the years.)
As transmen and women, especially if transition, or have already transitioned, the constant need for hormones, especially for post-op individuals who are not longer producing their own hormones to take over if they don't have access to hormones can be bad. While that doesn't excuse the how low the US scored for Lesbians, gays and bisexuals as well, I do kinda see where they are coming from with the medical standards aspect, as if we are transitioning, we do need regular access to hormones.
That is my take on the medical exclusion at least, I could be completely off base here though.
I can see that point of view, Colleen, and that's honestly what I thought when I first started reading about HRT. But the truth is ... other nations allow trans people to serve with no issues. So, it can obviously be done.
True, I just have to wonder how many of those other nations are involved in long term overseas deployment involving armed combat like the US is. US to my knowledge is the only one that has been engaged in some sort of war or full military operations consistently since WWII. It might be why we are so behind in this than other nations. We think in terms of combat readiness than equality.
Again, just my opinion on why the US military isn't.
Quote from: Colleen♡Callie on February 22, 2014, 10:25:24 PM
The one thing I can say, though this isn't me supporting it or anything, but I can sort of see the reasoning behind the medical standards argument.
While deployed, access to medication and therapies are very low, they can have important life saving antibiotics and the like for wound care and such, but even something like having asthma excludes you, mostly because of the need of an inhaler and the likelihood, if deployed, of not having access to one when needed, is extremely high. (though I know asthma used to be an exclusionary medical condition for military service, not sure if that's changed over the years.)
As transmen and women, especially if transition, or have already transitioned, the constant need for hormones, especially for post-op individuals who are not longer producing their own hormones to take over if they don't have access to hormones can be bad. While that doesn't excuse the how low the US scored for Lesbians, gays and bisexuals as well, I do kinda see where they are coming from with the medical standards aspect, as if we are transitioning, we do need regular access to hormones.
That is my take on the medical exclusion at least, I could be completely off base here though.
Your argument holds no water dahrling !
No unit, even the SF, go beyond 2 or 3 weeks tops before being "refueled." Any Marine, Sailor, Airman, or Soldier can easily carry a 2 months or more supply of hormones. And even if you loose them, 2-3 weeks without the hormones is not going to kill you or make you disable.
Quote from: Colleen♡Callie on February 22, 2014, 10:25:24 PM
The one thing I can say, though this isn't me supporting it or anything, but I can sort of see the reasoning behind the medical standards argument.
While deployed, access to medication and therapies are very low, they can have important life saving antibiotics and the like for wound care and such, but even something like having asthma excludes you, mostly because of the need of an inhaler and the likelihood, if deployed, of not having access to one when needed, is extremely high. (though I know asthma used to be an exclusionary medical condition for military service, not sure if that's changed over the years.)
As transmen and women, especially if transition, or have already transitioned, the constant need for hormones, especially for post-op individuals who are not longer producing their own hormones to take over if they don't have access to hormones can be bad. While that doesn't excuse the how low the US scored for Lesbians, gays and bisexuals as well, I do kinda see where they are coming from with the medical standards aspect, as if we are transitioning, we do need regular access to hormones.
That is my take on the medical exclusion at least, I could be completely off base here though.
Yeah in infantry or actual combat units this is true. When you are actually in the heat of battle and so on but infantry makes up very little of the military. For every combat unit there are probably ten support units. Support units usually stay in the rear and in safety zones. And another one would be there are units that do not deploy and keep bases and so in the states running and so on. The gays lesbians and bi's really would have no problems, trans on the other hand I don't see any problem being in support units with access to the medical things they/we would need such as HRT and so on. I mean really? They are making acomodations or trying to for headgear due to religious beliefs and some patriotic transgender person can't serve their country openly not even in a combat zone? I know plenty of us have it's just a shame we couldn't be who we are at the time.
Like I said, entirely possible I was way off base there, and it seems I was.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current exclusion of transgender people based on the lack of "mental fitness?"
Getting them to see that differently would be the first step before getting into the hrt meds and such.
Quote from: Colleen♡Callie on March 03, 2014, 09:40:03 AM
Like I said, entirely possible I was way off base there, and it seems I was.
I wouldn't say way off base Colleen. I myself don't think that open transgender people should be in combat units or even frontline support units just because I know how some of our enemies feel about such things. LGB can hide and blend a lot better than we can if captured. In other words they may hate us so much they would perform SRS without anesthesia or other horrible atrocities. Not all countries follow the Geneva convention when it comes to torture. Think of what some people in this country think of us and then multiply that ten times over.
Quote from: JaimeD on March 03, 2014, 09:44:16 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current exclusion of transgender people based on the lack of "mental fitness?"
Getting them to see that differently would be the first step before getting into the hrt meds and such.
The mental fitness issue would be evident through basic training. When I went through there were 4 people that were kicked out due to mental problems. And me being trans made it. Trans in secret but I still made it and many more did too. So that excuse coming from the military is a load of BS.
Quote from: Jess42 on March 03, 2014, 09:50:49 AM
I wouldn't say way off base Colleen. I myself don't think that open transgender people should be in combat units or even frontline support units just because I know how some of our enemies feel about such things. LGB can hide and blend a lot better than we can if captured. In other words they may hate us so much they would perform SRS without anesthesia or other horrible atrocities. Not all countries follow the Geneva convention when it comes to torture. Think of what some people in this country think of us and then multiply that ten times over.
This ^^^ logic, which is totally flaw, has been used to keep cis-females out of combat roles.
The fact remains that when it comes to war and combat the brutality and horror make no age or gender discrimination.
Properly train and indoctrinate and motivate any citizen can be an effective warrior, history proves me right...
What requirements would need to be in place if the US allowed trans people to join the military? I would see no issues at all if SRS had been done but as a veteran I couldn't imagine being a pre-op trans in boot camp or tech school. Would a trans woman be in a female flight? If so, does she get the privilege of a private shower? How will others respond to this "preferential" treatment?
I'd be scared ->-bleeped-<-less to be trans in the US military. It was rough enough for some of the guys I knew that were a little flamboyant at times.
Quote from: peky on March 03, 2014, 01:21:10 PM
This ^^^ logic, which is totally flaw, has been used to keep cis-females out of combat roles.
The fact remains that when it comes to war and combat the brutality and horror make no age or gender discrimination.
Properly train and indoctrinate and motivate any citizen can be an effective warrior, history proves me right...
Honestly peky and this is just my opinion I really think they should leave the combat to the testosterone laden males whether transmales or cismales. Yes anyone can be an effective warrior but when it comes to hand to hand then strength on an even level plays a big role. There is no way I would want a sister or female relative in the infantry. There is no way I would want to be infantry transitioning or transitioned. Like I said the military has many more roles than just fighting and the combat roles only play a small part of it. Like I said that is only my opinion.
Quote from: FilaFord on March 03, 2014, 01:42:35 PM
What requirements would need to be in place if the US allowed trans people to join the military? I would see no issues at all if SRS had been done but as a veteran I couldn't imagine being a pre-op trans in boot camp or tech school. Would a trans woman be in a female flight? If so, does she get the privilege of a private shower? How will others respond to this "preferential" treatment?
I'd be scared ->-bleeped-<-less to be trans in the US military. It was rough enough for some of the guys I knew that were a little flamboyant at times.
The USA Congress would have to amend the Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10 are the laws that govern people in the military. Specifically there is a clause that reads: "Chapter 3 Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement
3-34 Personality, psychosexual conditions, transsexual, gender identity, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, other paraphilias, or factitious disorders; disorders of impulse control not elsewhere classified"