Printer-friendly version
Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
One small step, but a step in the right direction anyway.
TopShelf TG Fiction in the BigCloset!
One small step, but a step in the right direction anyway.
Checks can be made out & sent to:
Joyce Melton
1001 Third St.
Space 80
Calimesa, CA 92320
USA
Note: $6000 is the operating, maintenance and upgrade budget. Amounts received in excess of the $6000 will be applied to long term debt accrued over the last 19 years.
If you prefer, you can donate through Patreon:
Become a Patron!
Thank you!
Comments
YAY
ABOUT TIME
Is it really dead?
Does the President have to sign it?
Khadijah
He Will Sign
The Repeal of DADT was a big plank in his platform and finally fulfills the pledge made by Clinton to gays in 1992.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
But is our community covered?
I haven't seen anything to indicate we are. True, many see us as gay, but it would be easy to draw a line that says we aren't, as many of us do not place ourselves within the gay community, and many, if not most gays do not either..
I liked my time in the navy in the 60s, but it was this issue that made me get out.
I knew that I'd never be able to put in 16 more years without being caught being me.
Holly
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Holly
In Canada...
The Canadian equivalent of DADT was repealed a few decades ago. I was in the forces before that, and even then, I was not officially persecuted, so the internal politics were not as severe as in the US, though many GLBT soldiers were hounded and discharged, even up here in the north.
These days, the military pays for GRS.
If Canada is any indication of social trends on the continent, the US forces will probably (eventually) lump transgendered troopies in with the more numerous sexuality-evolved.
Who knows? Joining up to become all that you can be might be a trend in itself!
;-)
Michelle
Gay?
I am another who has some issues with this. I know it has all been said before, but when you take those four letters, while three of them are about who you like, the last is about who you are. I know that a united front is better than fighting separately, and I have no issues with LGB, but there are profound differences between me and them. Logically, I fall into the 'straight' camp, so where does that leave me?
Sorry to make such obvious points, but does the end of DADT in your country have any real effect on people like me?
no personal...
... knowledge or experience but a few weeks back there was a few day kerfuffle on talk back radio over a TG soldier. Married with a kiddie or two, some years in and now transitioning. The 'noise' was about the Defence Dept agreeing to fund the surgery. I suppose it remains to be seen how that affects her career. But for now it seems relatively positive.
On a side note the whole GLBT thing is a bit fluid and messy and generally I tend to keep my distance. Not much of a joiner.
Kris
Gay AND trans in the forces
I was and am transgendered, and when I left the Canadian Armed Forces (they were integrated back then) I was an officer. I also served in the non-commissioned ranks. I also was and am bisexual, which to the military meant gay. I was also in the first stages of transitioning when I resigned.
The Cdn. armed forces' recognition of the right of its members to a private sex life almost immediately extended to its transgendered members, even though it had NOT been the intent of the original policy changes. Our communities ARE associated: to a narrow mindset, crossdressing is "gay." To a bureaucracy that needs its little boxes checked and filled in, anyone a transsexual sleeps with is/might be/was/will be gay sex.
That, and the fact that bigots lump us together for discrimination and lumps, also gives all of LGBT's members common cause in self-defense.
In Canada, transgendered service people benefited almost immediately from the courage and determination (and generosity) of gay and lesbian members (and ex-members). I can foresee the same process in the United States.
Protection and recognition under the law is protection and recognition under the law. Respect is respect.
And military integration and respect tends to spill over to the civilian world.
Michelle
Transgenders are not covered
under the repeal of DADT. If you wish to join the military, whether you are same sex oriented or opposite sex oriented, you are still expected to dress according to regulations. I'm not sure about free time (leave) in the USofA, but overseas deployments and off-duty times on bases/ships they could probably discharge you for dressing in a manner that was "distracting" to other service members, thereby affecting "morale."
I myself was in the military, but at the time did not realize how much girl was in me, thinking only that I was a "dirty CD" and hiding my predilections. Even so, there was at least once I was nearly caught in inappropriate attire. I know that I'd have been discharged pronto if ever discovered...or at the mercy of whoever did the discovering. It's sad to realize that transgenders are nearly as far from equal rights as gays and lesbians have ever been--and sadder to say that it is doubtful when such a time will ever come.
SuZie
SuZie
Over the Years
I have known many career officers and enlisted personnel in the Air Force and Army who were gay, and probably still are for that matter. They were professional in every way in their service to their country, and very effective. I knew some who were administratively removed from the service when their orientation was revealed. What a tragedy.
The ignorance and stupidity of the Marine Generals and the Senator from Arizona is pathetic. "We have worked hard to create a unjustified fear of the homosexual in the military, and because of that fear we have tried so hard to instill in our troops, which we have succeeded to do by the way, our homophobic troops will not be able to work effectively along side any gay member. Because of our stupidity, of which we are very proud, we have created a situation that prevents our soldiers, because of an unreasonable fear, to be as effective as they could be. Our circular arguement is the only way."
Portia
Portia
I too am delighted
that this has happened. I have never been in the military but I had a dear friend in the Navy. She was dishonourably discharged and lost job, house, spouse and family simply because she was transsexual; a condition which she neither sought nor wanted.
It's long past time that the military also realised that sexual orientation doesn't affect courage under fire.
Sad to realise also that, in the First World War, I would probably have been shot in the back by an officer of my own army, an army that I was forced to join.
S.
UK Military and Transgender
Hi
UK military are now generally okay with transgendered people. There may be issues where they are serving in a single sex regiment. For instance a M2F been serving in a pure male regiment and then have to move to a female or mixed one. There was a case a few years ago where that occured and they got very upset.
Karen
I'm still waiting for the
I'm still waiting for the proverbial "other shoe to drop" on DADT, as Arizona Senator McCain (r) is totally against this and he has on more than one occassion stopped bills all on his own. Each Senator, has the right (according their rules) to stop any bill he/she does not care for and no-one else can stop them from doing so; and No other Senator can "force the issue" to be resolved. As far as it goes, I also believe that Marine Gen Amos was very homophobic in his stated rationale for trying to "kill" the DADT bill or the bill with DADT in it. He claimed that if DADT passed Marines would die or be seriously injured, because they would not have their mind fully focused on their job or mission. What a total bunch of tripe and BS; and here I thought he was an adult. I still see the Federal Courts being involved in this and I do not (as much as I wish it were not so), believe we have seen or heard the last of this entire issue. I will be most happy to see a "clean" bill on DADT passed, eliminating DADT in its entirety and signed by the President so it becomes LAW. I hope, beyond hope, that we will be fortunate enough to see it done by the end of this year; however, it may take another year to get it done.
The other shoe, I think...
...was the possibility of a Supreme Court decision that would open the floodgates to 32,000 wrongful termination and civil rights infringement lawsuits, probably amounting to billions of dollars, trillions when one adds in legal costs. A half a dozen Republicans voted against their party position, and I suspect had been subjected to pressure to make this "sacrifice" because keeping the policy through a final court decision would be a financial and political disaster. Imagine the Republicans, and their "Blue Dog" Democratic friends, announcing with pride that a mere trillion dollars or three was a small price to pay for keeping Godless Queers out of the military.
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
x
nevermind what i said here, i get so tired of me...
What borders on stupidity?
Canada and Mexico.
.
I saw this pre-delete
and I liked it. Stop the over active self-editor, Laika, please.
A small step
In posting this announcement, I called it a small step, and it is, a very small one or should be, but that doesn't mean it isn't important. Like most here, I'm not going to join the military (though I might have, if I thought they'd have a ++ year old with a bad heart, I'm a USAian and could really use better health care and soon.), like a smaller most, I've never been in the military either and have never had to hide from that particular kind of inquisition, but that isn't the point.
And I'll say that it's more than a bit depressing (to me) to hear people say things like: "So what, they ain't me. I'm T, not G, not Q, not L." Because that isn't the point either. And adding in the,'they sold us short back then' sauce, really, really isn't the point.
See, I am old enough to remember seeing two water fountains in train stations. I'm just old enough to remember when I learned that was unfair, but I'm not black, (and at my local Walgreen's they really did look just the same, I remember them well and the damn sign and not fondly, but I knew when I was about seven why it was unfair.)
My father and mother played canasta with a Jewish man and woman every week. He could have course privileges at the local golf club, but could not be a member. I knew as a child why that was unjust.
And I knew, without being told, by the time I was twelve, that it wasn't his poverty that would have kept my grandfather out of the club, (I knew that because I had been to the big town (not their own town, where almost everyone shared an ethnicity) with my grandparents, and knew there where some stores where they did not yet feel welcome.) But I am really only half that ethnicity, and the other half of me is divide into eighths (and none are ones that anyone cares about now unless they are looking for good kolaches, wiener schnitzel or crawdads) and I left the religion that united those groups long, long ago. Should I still care about all that? Because for a while I did think, ~Hey, the world has gotten better and it isn't me those sign are meant for these days,~ but it didn't feel better; it felt unjust and unfair and mean.
Then I got older, and a found out about other groups that were exclude, condemned, hated for what they were. And it wasn't like the drinking fountains. There were no signs telling them to keep out. It was worse. There were FBI files (and M1 files and Interpol files too) and there were whispers and snickers and innuendo and convictions and imprisonments and chemical treatment of great and marvelous genius who had already given much to the whole world. And I was still young when I discovered I was a member of that - those groups too, and I was still young when I learned that even those that were fighting hard and sometimes at great risk for the freedom, because damnit Selma was about freedom, of blacks. Those that thought the 'ancient' "Keep out Pollock/Mick/Bohunk" signs were funny, or that the ones that said, "Crucify the Kikes" were evil, still thought that this group that I belonged to should hide, and cower, and suffer or, maybe, that they should just stay away.
I was almost young, but not quite, when it didn't change. When there was a riot in New York called Stonewall. I wasn't there, I was hiding and cowering and suffering in a dorm room in Texas. But people talked about it. Nothing changed. But people talked about it. I, We, all of us, all of us, all of us talked about it. It was even in the daily paper. It wasn't the first Queer riot, but we, and they, talked about it. And nothing changed, but everything did.
I know that the first gay bar in Austin didn't open the week after Stonewall, because I know it was already old when I found it the week after Stonewall, but it felt new to me. I was never, ever ashamed of being gay - I denied being gay, yeah, but that's not the same thing - It was the same as being Bohunk/Kraut/Cajun/Mick/Wop/Papist to me, just a lot less escapable or disguisable - for me.
But for years, and years, and years --- and years. It went on. And nothing changed. But we could go to clubs, our clubs, if that was what we wanted to do. I guess we could before, but now we could walk outside the front door. And we could have friends too. But we, even if we were out, didn't talk about those place or friends at work, or to landlords and neighbors. Even if we could hide what we were, we didn't ever talk of it to 'them' - because of rumors and innuendo and snickers and lies.
I know. This is a lot of misremembering here. A sociologist or cultural historian would find tons of fallacies in the way I'm telling this. But just because it isn't accurate, doesn't make it false, because I'm not the only one that remembers it this way. Look, Warhol wasn't the first homosexual artist, or film maker; Capote wasn't the first homosexual novelist, Holly Woodlawn probably wasn't the first transsexual to appear in a movie, but suddenly we all knew that was what they were as we walked up to the box offices! One of us, one of us. And before the convictions too. And that was different.
So as nothing ever changed, things changed. Some movies were made that had us in them, that were about us, really the real us, just a few but they existed. Really stupid, insulting (IMO) gay characters showed up as stars in sitcoms. But they existed. Some not so over the top minor characters followed.
But for most of us, gay,lesbian, transsexual, us, it didn't change. We still hid. Because, in spite of the stereotype, not all of us are artist or geniuses, alas and alac.
But it did change. We became mayors and congressmen and judges and cabinet level wonks. Openly- because, obviously we had always been all of those things (well, I don't know about the cabinet level wonks, I'm not sure the FBI is that bad, and they looked hard). In 1993 the FBI, and the military police and investigation units were still looking for gays everywhere. That is where DADT came from; it said quit hunting, and that wasn't a bad thing, (not good, but a real, real change). But it meant that gays still had to hide.
I DON'T WANT TO HIDE. I don't want you to hide.
Because if a black can't drink the water on the right, if a Jew can't have a hamburger after his golf round, if my grandmother can't charge things at the Rexall Pharmacy because her name ends in a k, if a dumb fag can't get his ass shot off, then it hurts me, and you and us and them too. And yes it matters. No, it isn't lynching and workcamps, but it is the same thing, because liberty is more then the freedom to be like you, or them, and it can't be measured in grams; it is all or nothing, and if they don't have it then I don't; if I don't, they don't.
Wow!
Jan that is some rant. Somehow the officially bad grammar, the unnecessary repeats just make it so much more of a rant and so much more visceral and so much the better for it.
It's not often I'll read a reply to a blog post as long as yours but I'm glad I did. I'm not really any of those things - I'm not gay, not lesbian, not bisexual even and nor am I really trans if by that you mean transsexual. I'm not sure what I am, except that I don't think anyone should be punished for what they are and have little control over.
That DADT policy always reminded me of the masters at school who ignored the plume of blue tobacco smoke over the outside toilets or issuing from the air vents of the air-raid shelters because it was too much hassle actually to punish boys for doing something they all did in the security of the staff-room. As you'll guess it was long ago when most people (even me) smoked. It was always a nonsense and I'm glad the US is finally getting rid of it. Weren't there Greek regiments that relied on the love between soldiers to be able to function so fiercely and effectively?
Robi
Yes -- Sworn Lovers
Unlike the He-Manised heterosexual Spartan soldiers falsely portrayed in the 300 film, the Spartans believed that homosexual lovers often made the best and bravest soldiers, because they would fight to the death to protect their lover, and would be ashamed to run away with their lover looking on. The Sacred Band of Thebes, three hundred warrior couples, had handily defeated a much larger Spartan force some years before, and it was thought that the Spartan Three Hundred were chosen deliberately to emulate that famous military unit, in numbers at least, as an inspiration. All the Spartans practised institutional pederasty, but (unlike the Thebans) had not made homosexuality mandatory in their military divisions. On the other hand, they are not known to have discouraged homosexuality, since all of them had at some point in their lives had a "gentleman admirer" or had had a pretty boy around for casual sex.
The film outraged the Iranians, because it made the Persians out to be "Queer," when in fact the shoe was on the other foot.
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
YES ... Jan S
You nailed it. Acceptance is the road to acceptance.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
To paraphrase...
That's one giant step for mankind...
While it doesn't address transgendered service members (I was one), it not only removes the old DADT law, it has provisions that support LGB service members serving openly - something that was NOT there in the past. It also has a mechanism to "phase" in the changes.
Transgendered service member have never been part of DADT. They (we) are covered by other regulations - regulations that can be changed by the president - without recourse to Congress. What happens to transgendered service members, if they are "outed"? It depends on whether they are officers or enlisted. Enlisted are are discharged - typically dishonorably, but not always. Officers - it depends on the commanding officer. Sometimes they are given the opportunity to resign, which allows them to leave, with an honorable discharge. Other times, they are court martialed for conduct unbecoming of an officer. From what I've been able to discern, the vast majority end up deciding to leave (either they do not reenlist or they resign "voluntarily") rather than continue to live the lie or be outed when they can't any more.
My last year in the Navy was - not fun - to say the least as I lived a triple life... My wife & I lived in different states, as she was in graduate school... We visited each other on alternate weekends. I had to work as a guy... No kidding. My therapist was a civilian. No way I was going near a Navy shrink with this!!! I was also getting out as Anne 1-3 times a week for most of the year... Risky? Yes. But, necessary, I thought. Many other transgendered service members that I've talked to were also "hiding" who they really were by being in the service, even from themselves (can we say denial?).
Nothing changes for transgendered Americans who wish to serve in the military... So many of our allies (including the Canadians, Australians and even the Royal armed forces) allow transgendered people to serve. So, a giant step for America, but no step at all for transgendered people.
Anne
Raining cold rain on the parade
Near as I can see repeal of DADT means that knowledge that one's sexual attraction can not be the basis of prosecution and or sole reason for administrative discharge that person. Practice of sex between two consenting adults of the same sex will still fall under the the prohibitions of Article 125 Sodomy. Dressing and presenting as the opposite gender might fall under Article 134-General Article which states
In other words (1) has the accused done or failed to do certain acts; and (2) is the accused’s conduct, under the circumstances, prejudicial of good order and discipline in the armed forces or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Of course this is subjective, but is why it is the general article
The thing that's troubled me all along...
...is that it's been a political football on both sides of the aisle. Either of the recent Democratic administrations could, as has been pointed out, have solved this with an executive order. The whole policy was wrought under Bill Clinton's watch, despite the promises made to eliminate the original discriminatory policy altogether.
I believe that it needn't have taken this long, since a supposedly sympathetic Democratic majority in both houses coupled with a sympathetic White House these past two years could haved eliminated sexual preference or gender identification as criteria for service by now. Polls and a willingness to please demographic projections, not character and understanding, have driven this. Hopefully this will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Dio vi benedica tutti
Con grande amore e di affetto
Andrea Lena
Love, Andrea Lena