It's time to end the ban against transgender soldiers
By The Times Editorial Board
Posted: Jul 23rd, 2014 @ 5:09 PM EST

The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" may have ended the ban on openly gay and lesbian troops, but a ban remains in place for an estimated 15,000 transgender troops, who must serve in secret or not at all.

More: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-transgender-soldiers-20140724-story.html

I can relate to this. I was in the air force a few years ago. I was completely unable to talk about my real issues because of that restriction, so even after I ended up in therapy, I had to keep my mouth shut. I almost killed myself because of it. Now I'm 27 and just starting to accept and express my true self, when I could have done so in my early 20's instead. It's been a huge burden on my life. I keep thinking about how I could already be through the largest hurdles now if all that hadn't been in the way.

I can't comment about an FTM person in the military. However, I believe it would be extremely dangerous for a guy if he was even suspected of being MTF.

Quote from: mac1 on July 23, 2014, 11:13:21 PM
I can't comment about an FTM person in the military. However, I believe it would be extremely dangerous for a guy if he was even suspected of being MTF.

Have a little trouble with this statement.

Soldiers are disciplined. They are trained to put up with all sorts of adverse situations. If soldiers were ordered and trained to accept a MtF soldier and treat her with respect, they would accept her and treat her with respect. IMO the fact that it would be "extremely dangerous" is a product of the current transphobic culture and not something and not at all the way it has to be.

This smacks eerily of the same arguments used in the 20th century against integrating black and white soldiers in the same unit - that it would be dangerous for the black soldiers.

Well Australia accepts trans*gender soldiers. Lt Col Cate McGregor is a trans woman.  The flight lieutenant of Prince Williams (Heir to the British Monarch) helicopter was a transwoman. She and the rest of his air crew went to the Royal wedding.

What's odd about being trans?

Why can't they serve?

Your examples are of MTF officers in the military. That situation is a lot different than being a lower grade enlisted MTF person in a barracks with a group of macho males.

Quote from: mac1 on July 24, 2014, 09:29:51 AM
Your examples are of MTF officers in the military. That situation is a lot different than being a lower grade enlisted MTF person in a barracks with a group of macho males.

Isn't this argument also entirely applicable to keeping other groups, like women and gay men, out of the military? I appreciate safety concerns because many forces, including the U.S., seem to have massive problems with sexual assault and harassment allegations being taken seriously but wouldn't the solution be to invest more resources in systems that penalise perpetrators of harassment, bullying, and assault so the culture changes rather than ban vast swathes of people? Doesn't a ban merely penalise victims before they're even victims and allow toxic masculinity that belongs in the 1950s to continue unabated?

Quote from: mac1 on July 24, 2014, 09:29:51 AM
Your examples are of MTF officers in the military. That situation is a lot different than being a lower grade enlisted MTF person in a barracks with a group of macho males.

When I was in, other than basic training and AIT, the barracks were either two to a room or three to a room. You would have to have male rooms, female rooms, FTM rooms and MTF rooms. If enough transgenders enlisted I think it would be too much of a problem. The training barracks you could have seperate male and female barracks like they do now and seperat MTF and FTM barracks. Several people would get together and rent places to get out of the barracks too. I was one of em'. They could still inspect where you lived if you rented but a whole lot less than in the barracks.

Quote from: suzifrommd on July 24, 2014, 08:30:14 AM
Have a little trouble with this statement.

Soldiers are disciplined. They are trained to put up with all sorts of adverse situations. If soldiers were ordered and trained to accept a MtF soldier and treat her with respect, they would accept her and treat her with respect. IMO the fact that it would be "extremely dangerous" is a product of the current transphobic culture and not something and not at all the way it has to be.

This smacks eerily of the same arguments used in the 20th century against integrating black and white soldiers in the same unit - that it would be dangerous for the black soldiers.

This assumes that /all/ soldiers are accepting and respectful individuals who obey orders blindly. Just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean that you're going to do it because humans are just so much more complex than that.

Trans people are still assaulted, murdered, and harassed regularly and it doesn't matter who is at fault for that. What matters is that it still happens and it's still dangerous to be out. Especially in the military where sexual assault and rape are still popular things––at least in America.

Quote from: timbuck2 on July 24, 2014, 01:58:14 PM
This assumes that /all/ soldiers are accepting and respectful individuals who obey orders blindly. Just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean that you're going to do it because humans are just so much more complex than that.

Trans people are still assaulted, murdered, and harassed regularly and it doesn't matter who is at fault for that. What matters is that it still happens and it's still dangerous to be out. Especially in the military where sexual assault and rape are still popular things––at least in America.

All of those dangers are highly present for cis women in the military, especially during deployment. We still let them in, and instead the crimes are punished accordingly. Victims shouldn't be punished for potential crimes no matter who the victim is.

Quote from: timbuck2 on July 24, 2014, 01:58:14 PM
This assumes that /all/ soldiers are accepting and respectful individuals who obey orders blindly. Just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean that you're going to do it because humans are just so much more complex than that.

Trans people are still assaulted, murdered, and harassed regularly and it doesn't matter who is at fault for that. What matters is that it still happens and it's still dangerous to be out. Especially in the military where sexual assault and rape are still popular things––at least in America.

So would you exclude ANYONE who might be unpopular (because of, say, race, national origin, religion, etc.) or just MtF folks? I mean, would a Muslim be in danger in a mostly Christian unit, given that Muslims have been murdered, harassed etc? Wouldn't a person of color be in danger in a mostly white unit?

Who would you allow in and who would you exclude for their own protection because members of their group have been harassed and murdered for who they are?

Quote from: timbuck2 on July 24, 2014, 01:58:14 PM
This assumes that /all/ soldiers are accepting and respectful individuals who obey orders blindly. Just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean that you're going to do it because humans are just so much more complex than that.

Trans people are still assaulted, murdered, and harassed regularly and it doesn't matter who is at fault for that. What matters is that it still happens and it's still dangerous to be out. Especially in the military where sexual assault and rape are still popular things––at least in America.

I hate to dispel the myth but in the military you do not follow orders blindly. Lawful orders within reason yes, you have to follow but say I am in Iraq and a PFC and my platoon leader which would be a 2nd lt or 1st lt told the platoon to go into the village and kill everyone in their homes. That is an unlawful order and command can be taken from the platoon leader by the next in line which would be the platoon sergeant. Anyone and everyone that would follow those orders would be brought up on crimnal charges because that would be an unlwful order.

Assualt and rape in the military is probably lower statistically than in the civilian world. Yes it happens and usually when it does it makes the news channels when average everyday assualts and rapes don't. In the military it's just higher profile. I was in for four years and in two different units one overseas and the other in the states and there was never a rape or assualt. Sex, adultry and fraternization, oh yeah but it was all consensual. BTW, fraternization and adultry are both crimes in the military.

Also there were LGBTs serving when I was in so really it wouldn't be any different. Its just now the LGB can be open about their sexual orientation and the Ts still have to hide and repress their gender expression. I really don't see that there would be much of a difference other that trans could freely express themselves.

Differences between race and religion are much more common than being a transsexual. Maybe years down the line they'll all be fairly common and everyone can be so used to it that it wont be an issue...but it is and I refuse to support any type of movement that might put others at harm so I can be as progressive as possible.

It's clear how closed minded some people are about this. That's fine, if you're willing to expose people to more danger than necessary that's on you and more power to ya.

I just personally know that I will never allow myself or anyone I care about to put themselves at an even higher chance of becoming a victim.