USNA Mids describe smooth transition from 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

[Pima]

The next push has to do with the T in LGBT. That's a tricky, tricky one as very few people in the population have any interaction or experience with those types of people. It will be awhile before that comes into play.

I don't know how that will occur, not due to a societal view, but more from a medical DQ perspective. No doc that I know of will perform a transgender operation until the patient is 18, and it is not a 6 month long process, it takes yrs. Hence, by the time they could join the military they may be too old to get a medical waiver, especially for certain career fields.

I am not positive, but doesn't that operation also require life time testerone/estrogen shots? If so, I would think even if they waived the operation, the meds required would be an automatic DQ.

Back on topic though. JAM, I hope you understand that the real argument here people are making has nothing at all to do with the sexual orientation, but with the fact that the DOD did not think this out regarding the effects of repealing DADT.

Honestly, I wonder if DADT was repealed a decade ago when homosexual unions did not exist in the US, would this have changed the course we are now having from the national level? Military members still would have been able to serve openly, but the effects of marriage in the military would not have been an issue. It would have become an issue in this current atmosphere because people would recognize that for the same time frame we had soldiers dieing without giving them the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Maybe Americans would have placed that into their equation when pulling the lever at their voting booth. Maybe not, we will never know because we put the cart before the horse and now have to figure out how to get back in alignment.

 

[temp]

I'm glad your experiences have been smooth. A question: do you think that LGB officers have it easier, given that their peers are largely more educated and more liberal, as a group, than the enlisted ranks?

Classic answer: it depends. General Cartwright a few years ago cited an interesting survey result - opinions on the subject came down to one demographic identifier mainly: age. Rank wasn't a good predictor of opinion. Now, as far as what I've actually seen and heard....I can give mixed anecdotes. The education component certainly helps among officers, but at the same time, those that are of the evangelical variety that have the biggest issues with LGB servicemembers are more likely to be officer than enlisted AND use their position to cause a toxic work environment. I chose not to interact with the full Outserve groups that include all ranks and focused my social circles on officers only. The stories among that group aren't terribly surprising. Enlisted reactions to LGB officers are either positive or not there. An enlisted person with an issue isn't going to piss off the officer whether for professionalism, fear of retribution, or fear of rank (the reason may depend on the enlisted rank). The answer does rely on age. Junior officers and junior enlisted have few problems among their peer groups due to the younger generation's view on the subject (that it doesn't matter). The greatest tension I see is junior members being open with senior members. There is still fear of reprisal among junior members as the senior ranks are less supportive. Having said that, if an issue in the unit occurs where people are making the environment toxic for LGB members and the issue is brought to leadership, they have been quick to squash those causing the toxic environment. This is also a mix of professionalism and fear of reprisal. No commander wants to be the one who loses their job by causing the first media event by allowing anti-LGB attitudes to proliferate in their unit.

I'm giving you a long answer but let me draw this point to a close. My experience with enlisted to enlisted acceptance is very limited but I suspect it isn't much different than the officer side. The pressures helping to make the integration (is it really integration? We were already here!) smooth are a combination of professionalism (mostly) and fear of losing a career (not a great pressure to prevent overt homophobia, but better than making hate speech acceptable). From experience, the units where integration is the smoothest and least problematic are where the LGB senior officers have made themselves known (not necessarily overtly, but things like pictures of partners or bringing them to social events) and senior officers have been deliberately helpful in encouraging LGB members to be open by providing full support and engagement.

temp - questions about benefits.
I would think that with DOMA there would not be any benefits for gay partners .... but the State department under Hilary Clinton has extended benefits to gay partners at least in matters of moving, diplomatic passports etc. Does this have any bearing on the military?

I believe this has only been the case for international state department members while those in the domestic offices don't enjoy full benefits. They found a loophole where DOMA didn't apply overseas or something like that. I could be way off-base here. I am not terribly familiar with the state department policies other than knowing they have acted differently with regards to DOMA and benefits. I think we may see it have an impact on the military in terms of benefits that DOMA doesn't address that can be provided as well as legal fodder in court ("if they can, why can't we?")

I don't know how that will occur, not due to a societal view, but more from a medical DQ perspective. No doc that I know of will perform a transgender operation until the patient is 18, and it is not a 6 month long process, it takes yrs. Hence, by the time they could join the military they may be too old to get a medical waiver, especially for certain career fields.

I am not positive, but doesn't that operation also require life time testerone/estrogen shots? If so, I would think even if they waived the operation, the meds required would be an automatic DQ.

Ya, I am relatively well-informed about transsexuals compared to most of the population and I'm still very ignorant. The reason I can see hormone treatments potentially being ok is I have a friend who had cancer and now needs testosterone patches. He is still active, it just means he can't deploy, etc. This is where I can see service with limitations being possible. But really, I don't see it anytime soon due to societal issues (ignorance and "icky") and lack of advocacy. Really, the LGB(T) community act as the advocates despite being really different issues. Outserve has shifted their attention to integrating transsexuals into the military....much to the chagrin of many of us within who would rather see the fight focused on LGB benefits and completing that course before moving to a new one.

 

[sprog]

Ya, I am relatively well-informed about transsexuals compared to most of the population and I'm still very ignorant. The reason I can see hormone treatments potentially being ok is I have a friend who had cancer and now needs testosterone patches. He is still active, it just means he can't deploy, etc. This is where I can see service with limitations being possible. But really, I don't see it anytime soon due to societal issues (ignorance and "icky") and lack of advocacy. Really, the LGB(T) community act as the advocates despite being really different issues. Outserve has shifted their attention to integrating transsexuals into the military....much to the chagrin of many of us within who would rather see the fight focused on LGB benefits and completing that course before moving to a new one.

Not that this is an excuse, as I know that homosexuality was there not too long ago, but I believe gender identity disorder (as it is called) is still included in the DSM-IV. That means that the psychiatric community still views it as a type of mental illness. As it stands now, I would think there could be issues with regard to a transgendered person serving in the military on that basis alone.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002495/

 

[temp]

We speculated that there might be a push with admissions to recruit LGB applicants at our Academy, but it seems like they're not going that route..

I didn't catch this one before. Don't expect to see any campaigns to recruit LGB service members. It is not a tracked demographic for them to count anyway. Plus, who you happen to love is not a necessary piece of information that needs to be tracked nor does anyone care to on either side of the aisle.

Where you might see interest is in general diversity considerations. If someone discusses the challenges of being LGB in an application essay, it might have similar impact to someone economically disenfranchised, untypical socio-economic conditions, etc. But this isn't a direct recruiting effort but rather part of the larger effort to find people from all backgrounds. It would have been convenient during my application years ago to be able to write about the hardships and lessons learned while struggling with my identity, but then they wouldn't have taken me! Instead I wrote something boring about relating to other cultures blah, blah.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I'm not sure I understand the need to create gay clubs. I think that was mentioned earlier. For it to be accepted across the board, I don't think starting a club helps.... in the long run.

I don't remember a straight club. I do remember wishing some lonely lonely nights at the academy that such a club did exist.

I understand sports teams. I understand clubs about interests.... like aviation club or law society, but I never understood the existence of clubs to "break down walls" as they collect the individuals who it applies to.

Would I feel comfortable in a gay club? Not likely. Would I feel comfortable in a club, that gays and straights are accepted in... sure.... that's what every other club I know of is like.

But creating groups specifically for a certain segment of the student population, you also create, maybe unintended barriers.

 

[Pima]

The reason I can see hormone treatments potentially being ok is I have a friend who had cancer and now needs testosterone patches. He is still active, it just means he can't deploy, etc.

Clarification did he have cancer prior to selecting his military path? Again, transgender surgery typically does not occur until the patient is 18. A military member already AD or in the system using military medical cannot be compared to my scenario.

I.E. if a cadet/mid at an any SA or AD is diagnosed with Hodgkins, their path would be different than a candidate who opted to take testerone because they felt the need/wanted to undergo a surgery from a personal perspective.

 

[temp]

I'm not sure I understand the need to create gay clubs. I think that was mentioned earlier. For it to be accepted across the board, I don't think starting a club helps.... in the long run.

I don't remember a straight club. I do remember wishing some lonely lonely nights at the academy that such a club did exist.

I understand sports teams. I understand clubs about interests.... like aviation club or law society, but I never understood the existence of clubs to "break down walls" as they collect the individuals who it applies to.

Would I feel comfortable in a gay club? Not likely. Would I feel comfortable in a club, that gays and straights are accepted in... sure.... that's what every other club I know of is like.

But creating groups specifically for a certain segment of the student population, you also create, maybe unintended barriers.

There are clubs for racial minorities, religious groups, cultural groups, academic groups, honor societies, women's groups, etc. Many of the "gay" groups are really gay-straight alliance groups. The "gay" groups without this intention are groups where someone can "let their hair" down a bit and not meant to build barriers. I have plenty of friends on both sides of the aisle (for gay and straight) and I feel comfortable in both groups talking about my partner, my life, the cute someone across the street, etc. However, sometimes I just want to hang with my gay friends because I can be quirkier for a bit, discuss topics that are a bit taboo in other circles (nothing deviant, just a different culture), or just talk about something we have in common and how it affects our lives. Barriers are created when a club is used to actively denigrate others, but if it's just a hang out, I see no barrier. For example, I had friends that went to the Asian-American or African-American groups. Didn't make a different as they went, did their thing, then I saw them again. Wasn't used to make me feel any different.

In the end, I don't think it matters. I understand their desire to form the groups because I know, especially before repeal, just how much having people like me to hang with occasionally improved my life and demeanor. I found it easier to talk about a boyfriend with a gay friend than with another straight person, for example.

 

[temp]

Clarification did he have cancer prior to selecting his military path? Again, transgender surgery typically does not occur until the patient is 18. A military member already AD or in the system using military medical cannot be compared to my scenario.

I.E. if a cadet/mid at an any SA or AD is diagnosed with Hodgkins, their path would be different than a candidate who opted to take testerone because they felt the need/wanted to undergo a surgery from a personal perspective.

You are absolutely correct. He had cancer while in service. It was ok for his career field.

The scenario I think of is if a TG person who has completed surgery and is now on hormones wants in, then it could be possible under limited career fields where deployment is not going to happen. A good question is if this is worth the effort? Answers vary, obviously.

I hate saying this, having just felt the pride of going from illegal to just another guy, but I don't see any movement on TG rights in the military for a very, very long time.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I can understand your last sentiment. And understand me, I'm not only talking about gay clubs.... I'm talking about clubs that exist for other purposes too.


Often plans to unite can become divisive. I think of all the special history days that exist. When you continue to differentiate between one history or one culture and another, it makes it very difficult for people like me, white males who's families came from the typical European countries to really feel bad.

"Black history should be American history." 100% agree. Therefore black history shouldn't be taught separately. If it is... someone believes it's a separate part of history, and as we all know, separate is not equal.

 

[temp]

I can understand your last sentiment. And understand me, I'm not only talking about gay clubs.... I'm talking about clubs that exist for other purposes too.


Often plans to unite can become divisive. I think of all the special history days that exist. When you continue to differentiate between one history or one culture and another, it makes it very difficult for people like me, white males who's families came from the typical European countries to really feel bad.

"Black history should be American history." 100% agree. Therefore black history shouldn't be taught separately. If it is... someone believes it's a separate part of history, and as we all know, separate is not equal.

Believe me, I agree with your sentiment. I agree things like black history month are silly. A club is (usually) not an endorsed time to make everyone learn about something but allows those with interest to participate. If there was a gay history month....I might start getting worried. Then again, it would be the most fabulous month of the year, I'm sure.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Then again, it would be the most fabulous month of the year, I'm sure.

It would probably be very colorful.


The elderly would be confused. "I think every month is gay. When I met your grandfather after the war, what a gay time it was."

 

[parentalunit2]

On forming clubs….

The “gay clubs” at the academies serve as a voice. I doubt that anyone thought when DADT was repealed that LGB cadets and mids would simply say, “Gee….thanks!” They now have a voice at the table and their voice must be heard, as there is still much work to be done.

I was amazed at how quickly they were organized, approved, and on their way to the OutServe conference in Las Vegas as an official trip section from USMA. Of course, everyone knew this was about to happen, but even so they moved pretty quickly! Knights Out, Blue Alliance, and USNA Out have been working for this for quite some time. When these young people attend functions such as this, in uniform and with the full backing of their academy, it speaks volumes. The importance of this visibility cannot be understated.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Can't wait for Straight USMA to get a trip to Las Vegas...

 

[LineInTheSand]

The importance of this visibility cannot be understated.

Although it can be overstated.

 

[SamAca10]

The “gay clubs” at the academies serve as a voice. I doubt that anyone thought when DADT was repealed that LGB cadets and mids would simply say, “Gee….thanks!” They now have a voice at the table and their voice must be heard, as there is still much work to be done.

I was amazed at how quickly they were organized, approved, and on their way to the OutServe conference in Las Vegas as an official trip section from USMA. Of course, everyone knew this was about to happen, but even so they moved pretty quickly! Knights Out, Blue Alliance, and USNA Out have been working for this for quite some time. When these young people attend functions such as this, in uniform and with the full backing of their academy, it speaks volumes. The importance of this visibility cannot be understated.

Why wasn't CGA's Spectrum invited? I'm not a member of that club, but they were the first one out of all of the Academies to be formed...

 

[Pima]

Just curious here, but when you say OutServe was an official trip, do you mean TDY orders from the USMA?

I only ask because in the end old days, if you were not on orders, than you were not to be in uniform, thus, the members should not be in uniform in public.

I am just curious. If you think about when and where you can wear a uniform as an AD member in public there are restrictions. Just asking, as many of you know I support these military members, but as a spouse, I don't know where the line is drawn from this perspective.

 

[billyb]

One solution that would make things alot easier is for the politicians to go ahead and make gay marriage (or whatever the correct term is) legal on the federal level.

Obviously the berthing and other issues will persist, but at least the bennies portion of it will go away for the poor LT or CPT trying to deal with a very real soldier issue that they have no solution for.

 

[Pima]

billyb,

I think that is what every military member wants.

I think it is insane to believe that because the way the military system works regarding bennies there will not be morale issues.

People who have never been in the military do not understand the lifestyle from a dual AD couple or even AD dependent.

Bullet was assigned overseas, the AF paid for me to go with him, once there I could get anywhere on base without him, I was given employment priority. We had a friend who wanted to get out, but was married. Single members had 2 yrs, married 3 yrs. He went unaccompanied. They paid out of pocket to fly the family to Europe since his orders only had him on it. They couldn't get base housing, and his BAH was w/o dependents, even though they had not only her, but a 2 yr old. She couldn't go to the BX, Commissary, pick him up at the squadron if the other car died, and had to fly stateside every 6 months because of Visa issues since he was unaccompanied.

That is the reality of what life was like for them. That will be the reality for many homosexual couples in the military because our govt is too chicken to acknowledge homosexual marriages.

My angst is not about homosexuals in the military, it is about the govt using the military as their social guinea pigs, trying to work out the issues in this small sect of our society.

Don't tell me, that you support the troops because of your little yellow ribbons on your car, or they should be able to live openly. Show me you support the troops by allowing every homosexual member to have the exact same right as every heterosexual. That means change your position President Obama from state rights decision to federal.

As a voter, I am not an Obama fan, I lean more to Romney due to non-social issues, but part of me is strongly considering voting for Obama because if he wins, he has nothing to lose since it is his last term, and Romney won't support this issue federally. The other part of me wonders if he is pandering to voters and come Jan. it will fall to the bottom of his list.

 

[Luigi59]

Just curious here, but when you say OutServe was an official trip, do you mean TDY orders from the USMA?

I only ask because in the end old days, if you were not on orders, than you were not to be in uniform, thus, the members should not be in uniform in public.

I am just curious. If you think about when and where you can wear a uniform as an AD member in public there are restrictions. Just asking, as many of you know I support these military members, but as a spouse, I don't know where the line is drawn from this perspective.

From what I saw of the pictures published from the conference last year, none of the academy representatives (cadets & mids) were in uniform.

 

[Pima]

Thanks Luigi,

I only asked because parentalunit2 stated in their post that it was not only an "official trip", but

When these young people attend functions such as this, in uniform and with the full backing of their academy, it speaks volumes. The importance of this visibility cannot be understated.

To me that says they were all in uniforms.

Still I have the lingering question of what "official" meant? Did the USMA fly them out there, pay for their hotel, per diem, etc? No begrudging here, but it doesn't make sense why they they would do this at all. Official = orders IMPO.