Coast Guard Academy supports transitioning (male to female) cadet

[nuensis]

But that’s not the Navy’s fault.

Not the Navy's fault, but it is the Navy's problem. We took them in. We should take care of them.

Hell, Post 9/11 GI Bill is worth at least $150k-$180k. I would enlist again just for that benefit alone.

That's right, why wouldn't you take the GI Bill?

It's not about convincing E-1s to join. It's about convincing E-5s to stay past the first 5-6 years. They're so far from 20 the pension doesn't even feel real. There's a Lockheed tech on the ship whispering sweet nothings in their ear. They're getting real tired of port and starboard every deployment, they're getting tired of being assigned 60 man-hours of work every week, and they're fed up with missing just about every major family milestone for the past four years. They've had all these problems and issues with pay and personnel and travel and misgivings about their leadership.

Why wouldn't they just take Skillbridge and the GI Bill and leave?

A 20 year might buy being grateful for three squares and a cot. At 27 they're weighing other things, and one of those things is absolutely getting out and cashing in the GI Bill. They can stay reserves and keep all the medical benefits too.

The original point I was trying to make: Asking sailors to fuel themselves by their wondrous patriotism through these issues is tone-deaf. They will just leave active duty. They are.

"Be grateful you're not sleeping on the dirt." Okay. Right.

 

[Kierkegaard]

Not the Navy's fault, but it is the Navy's problem. We took them in. We should take care of them.

That's right, why wouldn't you take the GI Bill?

It's not about convincing E-1s to join. It's about convincing E-5s to stay past the first 5-6 years. They're so far from 20 the pension doesn't even feel real. There's a Lockheed tech on the ship whispering sweet nothings in their ear. They're getting real tired of port and starboard every deployment, they're getting tired of being assigned 60 man-hours of work every week, and they're fed up with missing just about every major family milestone for the past four years. They've had all these problems and issues with pay and personnel and travel and misgivings about their leadership.

Why wouldn't they just take Skillbridge and the GI Bill and leave?

A 20 year might buy being grateful for three squares and a cot. At 27 they're weighing other things, and one of those things is absolutely getting out and cashing in the GI Bill. They can stay reserves and keep all the medical benefits too.

The original point I was trying to make: Asking sailors to fuel themselves by their wondrous patriotism through these issues is tone-deaf. They will just leave active duty. They are.

"Be grateful you're not sleeping on the dirt." Okay. Right.

Couldn’t agree more. And an all volunteer force + a shrinking pool of people who are willing and able to serve mean that recruitment and retention are very much a “buyer’s market”. While there are some great benefits of service, as they say in economics “the market decides”. Right now the numbers show that the services need to step up. We ask our sailors to make a lot of sacrifices and for many the pay/benefits aren’t cutting it. And even if one wants to serve their country, there are ample opportunities for a separating servicemember to do so in the civil service or as a contractor, in many cases for more money and less stress.

 

[SamAca10]

Some people feel a calling or an obligation to serve. For them it is not all about the Benjamins.

We all did at some point. There comes a point in time where one needs to be themselves and their family before the service.

Very easy for those in the 18-late twenties to serve, especially without kids. I'm proud of my service. I had full rides at competitive civilian schools. The Academy felt to me the best way to accomplish my desire to serve and my desire to be the first in my family to earn a college education.

I'm also proud that I've built a successful life outside of it. I didn't enjoy the majority of my 5 year obligation, worked with a lot of a**holes. Now I can choose what I do for work, am actually appreciated for my skills and individuality.

A 20 year career just isn't worth it, especially with those of us with great skillsets like cyber professionals, pilots, medical professionals, etc.

 

[OldRetSWO]

We all did at some point. There comes a point in time where one needs to be themselves and their family before the service.

Very easy for those in the 18-late twenties to serve, especially without kids. I'm proud of my service. I had full rides at competitive civilian schools. The Academy felt to me the best way to accomplish my desire to serve and my desire to be the first in my family to earn a college education.

I'm also proud that I've built a successful life outside of it. I didn't enjoy the majority of my 5 year obligation, worked with a lot of a**holes. Now I can choose what I do for work, am actually appreciated for my skills and individuality.

A 20 year career just isn't worth it, especially with those of us with great skillsets like cyber professionals, pilots, medical professionals, etc.

And some continue to feel it. Personally, I finished my career in the Reserves due to family considerations but that too was no picnic and I deployed a number of times as a reservist. I finally retired at year 27 (31 in total) and was glad to have done it but still feel the obligation to serve so I continue on Congressional Interview committees and as a BGO.
I know that my obligation is not felt by all and is totally voluntary on my part.

 

[SamAca10]

And some continue to feel it. Personally, I finished my career in the Reserves due to family considerations but that too was no picnic and I deployed a number of times as a reservist. I finally retired at year 27 (31 in total) and was glad to have done it but still feel the obligation to serve so I continue on Congressional Interview committees and as a BGO.
I know that my obligation is not felt by all and is totally voluntary on my part.

I'm glad you continue to feel it. My generation knows that there are many ways to serve outside of uniform. Being active in politics, entering rewarding fields in the private sector, maybe becoming an 1811, helping other transitioning service members and veterans.

Just because we remove the uniform doesn't mean we aren't service-oriented. Personally, I felt that the Coast Guard paid lip service to diversity. They didn't like diversity of thought and organizational change. Today's talent prefers flatter hierarchy. I'm appreciated in my current field. When I first left AD, I was making low six figures. Less than 3 years later from ETS, I doubled my salary. The CG would have never recognized, nor put me in positions where I could, use my talents had I stayed in.

I'm a straight male, yet I see the military's intolerance to people of diverse backgrounds (to include LGBT) as a huge hit on retention and recruitment. A good amount of Gen Z identifies as LGBT. LGBT people have always existed. It's just more open for those to be LGBT.

Even the VA provides gender affirming care to transgender veterans and asks about what our preferred pronouns are. Funny that active duty does not

 

[Kierkegaard]

I'm glad you continue to feel it. My generation knows that there are many ways to serve outside of uniform. Being active in politics, entering rewarding fields in the private sector, maybe becoming an 1811, helping other transitioning service members and veterans.

Just because we remove the uniform doesn't mean we aren't service-oriented. Personally, I felt that the Coast Guard paid lip service to diversity. They didn't like diversity of thought and organizational change. Today's talent prefers flatter hierarchy. I'm appreciated in my current field. When I first left AD, I was making low six figures. Less than 3 years later from ETS, I doubled my salary. The CG would have never recognized, nor put me in positions where I could, use my talents had I stayed in.

I'm a straight male, yet I see the military's intolerance to people of diverse backgrounds (to include LGBT) as a huge hit on retention and recruitment. A good amount of Gen Z identifies as LGBT. LGBT people have always existed. It's just more open for those to be LGBT.

Even the VA provides gender affirming care to transgender veterans and asks about what our preferred pronouns are. Funny that active duty does not

Spot on about there being many other ways to serve your country or community. I’ve heard many transition stories like yours.

Re: diversity, I have found the modern military to be very accepting, and that’s of course not to say there’s zero discrimination. But if anything, today’s formalized DEI programs generally just spend manpower and piss off people who would rather be getting their work done. The services are not behind the times. Heck, this thread was originally about CG supporting a gender transition, which would be unimaginable a generation ago.

 

[Ivy22]

I'm glad you continue to feel it. My generation knows that there are many ways to serve outside of uniform. Being active in politics, entering rewarding fields in the private sector, maybe becoming an 1811, helping other transitioning service members and veterans.

Just because we remove the uniform doesn't mean we aren't service-oriented. Personally, I felt that the Coast Guard paid lip service to diversity. They didn't like diversity of thought and organizational change. Today's talent prefers flatter hierarchy. I'm appreciated in my current field. When I first left AD, I was making low six figures. Less than 3 years later from ETS, I doubled my salary. The CG would have never recognized, nor put me in positions where I could, use my talents had I stayed in.

I'm a straight male, yet I see the military's intolerance to people of diverse backgrounds (to include LGBT) as a huge hit on retention and recruitment. A good amount of Gen Z identifies as LGBT. LGBT people have always existed. It's just more open for those to be LGBT.

Even the VA provides gender affirming care to transgender veterans and asks about what our preferred pronouns are. Funny that active duty does not

Great points.

At least for Navy, they do now actually cover gender affirming care for transgender sailors.

As far as diversity initiatives go, there are ways to do them right. The Naval Aviation community has been hosting a diversity conference put on by Air Boss every year for the past couple of years now. It's been a success so far. This year's conference was all about 50 years of women in Naval Aviation.

 

[Hopful_Mil_Kid]

Great points.

At least for Navy, they do now actually cover gender affirming care for transgender sailors.

As far as diversity initiatives go, there are ways to do them right. The Naval Aviation community has been hosting a diversity conference put on by Air Boss every year for the past couple of years now. It's been a success so far. This year's conference was all about 50 years of women in Naval Aviation.

I think this is a great point. Sometimes there is an attitude that any DEI initiative is a good or bad DEI initiative (depending on what side of the political spectrum you are on). The reality is that there are right and wrong ways to do these things, but that nuance sometimes (often?) gets lost in partisan bickering. Sigh... unfortunately.

I don't know what the answer is to the TG issue, but an outright ban can't be the best way to handle it. The trans people that I know are in some cases the best teammates, classmates and friends, and I would ride the river with them any day. Yeah, some are sleazy, creapy or shouldn't be in the service. But, lots of people like me (straight, cis, white men) shouldn't ever be near a gun or position of authority ether.

Ultimately, like with women or DADT, think the service loses if they lose that entire group of people. As with integrating women, some things had to change allow them to serve, and there are still issues with SA and relationships in the force. All of those issues are solvable with the right application of thought, time, effort and yes, even a little money.

 

[Impulsive]

The "problem" with DEI being forced on the military is it seems to in some instances lower the general standards for that position. Then the men and women who are in those positions, but not included in DEI (for whatever reasons) see themselves as getting forced into working with the people who benefit most from DEI and then struggle to do the job, forcing those who can do the job to take on more and more responsibility without reward, while those individuals benefitting from DEI pass them by. And we wonder why we cannot keep the top people in their fields? Sure the lure of no duty, and 9-5 m-f workweeks is appealing, but many of the people getting out IMHO would maybe stay if they were treated like high value personnel and not just another body.

While I do not agree with the military providing "sexual reassignment" to AD personnel (strictly do to cost, lost time and sometimes changing specialities), those prospective entrants who have already undergone the procedures should be treated like any other high value person, and given the "life" they need to be successful. The sea services tend to burn out members who don't necessarily want continuous sea duty, while not giving those who want to stay at sea and advance that opportunity. The land services used to have a policy of "if you serve unaccompanied overseas, you get your choice of billets INCONUS". No more, now getting members to go overseas unaccompanied is leaving large gaps in force structure because commands are stressing soldiers out to "extend their tours" and not being able to guarantee first choice upon return.

IMHO, it is only going to get worse. Many others have cited studies showing 10-14% of the eligible population even requests information on joining, and then maybe 3% are eligible. Of that 3%, do maybe 1-2% actually join and of that 1% maybe 20% make it a career. From listening to members here and reading articles in the various service newsletters, many people leave because of poor housing, miserable bosses, and lack of opportunity to advance and/or transfer to a job they really would like. The Post 9-11 GI Bill is also a killer as any enlisted servicemembers who are frustrated see serving four years and getting the benefit of the GI Bill as a "No Brainer". Why work in a jog you don't get ahead in, or live in below standard housing when you can go to college on the government and have the government even pay for your housing costs? Pretty good package for those servicemembers who excel but don't get the benefits because of the "system"!

We have to stop losing our mid-level leaders, both officer and enlisted! I don't have the answer, but the government needs to figure it out or else the deterioration of our Armed Forces will continue. Take care of our young men and women and they will lead and excel, crap on them and the good ones will leave. What are we left with at that point?

 

[KiwiBird]

I know I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'm pretty knowledgeable about trans military service. It's a topic I've done a good bit of research on. I'll post a link here to a huge study that was conducted about allowing trans people to serve. I've read through parts of it, and it indicates that trans people should be allowed to serve. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

If anyone has any specific questions, I'm happy to answer.