PDA

View Full Version : Now gays are ok, what about Transgendered troops??



garhkal
03-14-2014, 05:15 PM
Saw this in my email basket today, about a CA panel calling on President Obama to lift the ban on transgendered troops to serve, joining the supposed dozens of other countries which already allow it.

My big issue with that is there is a host of questions that need to be answered before any ban is lifted.

A) If a guy going to a gal is pre op, can he/she be deployed while awaiting surgery/taking their meds? What of the reverse (a gal going to guy)?

B) What "Berthing/head/shower" facilities would they use? Men's or womens? Should it be like Ca has ruled for schools in that they should use the ones they "ID with" rather than what medically they are?

C) What of Uniform requirements (and therefore uniform allowance)? Would a Guy going to Gal be required to have the Male uniform issuance, or the female one?

D) The obvious one of PT/Fitness. Would they use the male PT chart or the female one?
Does that matter if its pre op or post?

E) Health and welfare issues, do they need to remain stateside to be close to their docs and psychotherapists? What of the "women's wellness days" would a guy going to a gal be required/get to attend those? What of a gal going to a guy?

F) What of leave for kids? WOuld it be under the rules for Maternity leave or Paternity? Since even IVF can't give them a kid, they would have to go the route of adoption, should they even GET maternity/paternity leave?

What other issues do you see cropping up?

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2014/03/14/what-next-panelists-recommend-transgenders-in-the-military/?subscriber=1

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/03/panel-recommends-obama-lift-transgender-military-service-ban.html

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/03/14/world/panel-allow-transgender-troops-in-u-s/#.UyNHWhDNJDk

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/national/panel-urges-end-to-us-ban-on-transgender-troops/article_76a422ad-ff4c-5f7d-9423-0e0e778498c0.html

http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/13/study-urges-us-military-reconsider-ban-transgender-personnel

Giant Voice
03-14-2014, 06:12 PM
I don't think it'll make it too far. It was only a small commision from CA, but remember this...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/us/transgender-veteran/

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 06:48 PM
My big issue with that is there is a host of questions that need to be answered before any ban is lifted

If the repeal of DADT taught us anything is that the "host of questions and issues" amounts to very little...and most of them are best handled at the local level.

That said, I'm not jumping on the "repeal the ban of transgender" campaign just yet...I just don't know about that.

Interestingly enough, at my work we recently had an employee come out as transgender, within about a month or so began presenting as a woman (read: wearing women's clothing/wig). So far, no issues.

garhkal
03-14-2014, 07:16 PM
Do they use the guys or gals restroom?

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 07:22 PM
Do they use the guys or gals restroom?

Our employee, once she started presenting as a woman began using the woman's restroom, to my knowledge. I don't think I've seen her actually go in there, though. I do not monitor potty breaks.

Stalwart
03-14-2014, 07:31 PM
Since even IVF can't give them a kid, they would have to go the route of adoption, should they even GET maternity/paternity leave?

Adoptive parents can already apply for a 'paternity' type leave and get up to 21 days of that leave reimbursed once adoption is finalized.

So, if transgendered individuals are allowed to stay in the military and do adopt a child, why should they NOT get it?

garhkal
03-14-2014, 07:53 PM
Adoptive parents can already apply for a 'paternity' type leave and get up to 21 days of that leave reimbursed once adoption is finalized.

So, if transgendered individuals are allowed to stay in the military and do adopt a child, why should they NOT get it?

That was more towards would they be counted as a mom or dad for how long they get (since i didn't bother checking to see if there IS a difference in days or not)..

Stalwart
03-14-2014, 08:03 PM
That was more towards would they be counted as a mom or dad for how long they get (since i didn't bother checking to see if there IS a difference in days or not)..

Ah.

For adoption, there really isn't 'maternity' leave since the adoptive mother does not physically give birth so is not eligible for convalescent leave. However, the MILPERSMAN authorizes up to 21 days of reimbursable leave to a military member (regardless of gender) to allow for bonding and the various 'housekeeping' things that come along with finalizing an adoption (medical, getting child into DEERS, etc.) I took more than that but was not charged for the first 21 days.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 08:35 PM
D) The obvious one of PT/Fitness. Would they use the male PT chart or the female one?
Does that matter if its pre op or post?



And, if individuals are allowed to "self identify" then can anybody with a penis (I won't use the term male in order to not offend anyone) identify as a female in order to ease the standards? Or, as you said, does it have to be post-op?

Let's take it further. What if I choose to not identify as either male or female? What if I had my genitals removed but didn't go as far as to make me female? Will there be different PT standards for that?

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 08:37 PM
Our employee, once she started presenting as a woman began using the woman's restroom, to my knowledge. I don't think I've seen her actually go in there, though. I do not monitor potty breaks.

Does "she" get to PT under female standards. "She" should, since "she" is obviously female. Can "she" grow her hair to female standards? Wear the female stripes? If not, the "she" should not be using the female bathroom.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 08:40 PM
Does "she" get to PT under female standards. "She" should, since "she" is obviously female. Can "she" grow her hair to female standards? Wear the female stripes? If not, the "she" should not be using the female bathroom.

"She" is a contractor


3746

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 08:43 PM
"She" is a contractor


3746


Well, then, it doesn't really apply to the discussion and questions raised.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 08:47 PM
Well, then, it doesn't really apply to the discussion and questions raised.

Certainly it has some relevance..

But, I did post it somewhat as an aside "interestly enough..."

But, feel free to ignore it if it does not meet your standard of relevance...

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 08:56 PM
Certainly it has some relevance..

But, I did post it somewhat as an aside "interestly enough..."

But, feel free to ignore it if it does not meet your standard of relevance...

Ahh, of course..."interestingly enough" obviously means she wasn't military. My bad.

My standard of relevance is that the post and the questions asked were about military transgender and how it would work with all the regulations that military have to deal with. If that's relevant to a contractor then I guess I'll have to redefine some words for myself.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 08:58 PM
Ahh, of course..."interestingly enough" obviously means she wasn't military. My bad.

No, the "interestingly enough" is sort of a hint that it is an aside to the main conversation.

But you've known me long enough to know I retired some years ago....the term "employee" might also have been an indicator.


My standard of relevance is that the post and the questions asked were about military transgender and how it would work with all the regulations that military have to deal with. If that's relevant to a contractor then I guess I'll have to redefine some words for myself.

I guess so.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 09:05 PM
No, the "interestingly enough" is sort of a hint that it is an aside to the main conversation.

But you've known me long enough to know I retired some years ago....the term "employee" might also have been an indicator. Fine...the fact that a contract employee of yours being transgender and not raising any issues is completely relevant to how it will be an issue in the military. Oh, and just because you're retired doesn't mean you can't still work with the military. I work with several every day. Interesting enough, I supervise them. So, for future reference, when I talk about issues in the workplace in a thread about military issues, it's probably referring to military members.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 09:08 PM
Fine...the fact that a contract employee of yours being transgender and not raising any issues is completely relevant to how it will be an issue in the military. Oh, and just because you're retired doesn't mean you can't still work with the military. I work with several every day. Interesting enough, I supervise them. So, for future reference, when I talk about issues in the workplace in a thread about military issues, it's probably referring to military members.

Whatever, dude...

garhkal
03-15-2014, 02:23 AM
And, if individuals are allowed to "self identify" then can anybody with a penis (I won't use the term male in order to not offend anyone) identify as a female in order to ease the standards? Or, as you said, does it have to be post-op?

Let's take it further. What if I choose to not identify as either male or female? What if I had my genitals removed but didn't go as far as to make me female? Will there be different PT standards for that?

One site i looked at did mention there are those with Sexual identity disorder who don't align with ANY sex and wish to be neither.. So you do bring up a good point. Will they have to for the above listed concerns, OR will they be 'defaulted' to their birth sex?

socal1200r
03-17-2014, 12:02 PM
Just like with DADT, this is another STUPID issue that the military shouldn't have to deal with. The military should not be involved at all with someone changing their gender, period, dot. And whatever plumbing you're born with, that's the PT standards that apply to you, that's the bathroom you use, etc. If you don't like it, get the hell out, simple as that. It's the military's job to win our nation's wars, not assist someone with changing their gender. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID...

AJBIGJ
03-17-2014, 01:56 PM
My biggest concern I would raise is the costs, all those treatments and drugs they have to take are not exactly free. I imagine the cost of employing a post-op transgender for the duration of a career through retirement could cost I'm guessing as much as 150% over what the average service member would require. That's taxpayer dollars at work.

garhkal
03-17-2014, 06:09 PM
IMO that's is WHY they are trying to push for the mil to be required to have them... so more can get the treatment on the tax payer's dime.

raider8169
03-17-2014, 07:13 PM
I dont see this happening anytime soon seeing as they are still working out things for gays. Second, they would need to put measures in place for all the problems what would arise mainly bathroom use, changing areas, which regs they have to follow, stuff like that. If the military becomes unisex that would solve a few problems. My only concern would be those that keep changing their sex to fit their needs and the many people that would abuse the system. Im sure there is more that I am not thinking about but personally I could care less about if they serve or not just as long as they are doing it to serve and not just because they can.