The VA has a new directive on the treatment of Transgender Veterans, BUT they won’t release it. This is becoming a theme with the Obama Administration. Tell LGBT people that their issues are important then do nothing to make them a reality. Transgender veterans have decided not to be quiet about this issue any longer.

First, a little history. In January of 2003, the Transgender American Veterans Association was formed with the primary mission to work with the Department of Veteran Affairs to have their medical facilities treat transgender people with dignity and respect.

(Break)

In 2008, TAVA created a survey where 827 transgender veterans gave us information on all kinds of issues, especially their treatment at the VA. One third of those who took the survey had used a VA medical facility at one time of another. More than twenty percent of them had been mistreated by staff members, other patients, nurses and even doctors. The survey ended on May 1, 2008, and the raw data became public record. The Palm Center put out the White Papers in August.

TAVA was told by a VA insider that the raw data from the survey had reached the Veterans Health Administration, the medical department of the VA, and in June of 2008, they began drafting a directive to rectify the problem. In March of 2009 (after the Obama Administration took over,) the VHA sent a draft of their proposed directive to a few VA medical facilities for review by their transgender veterans. They didn’t contact TAVA or NCTE on this. The draft had misinformation, inaccuracies, incorrect descriptions and disrespectful definitions. It looked bad.

TAVA spent the next month communicating with some of the new people in the VA, some of whom had previous experience with transgender people and their medical issues. They agreed that the problem of mistreatment of transgender veterans needed to be fixed. TAVA felt hopeful that these new people now leading the VA would help us.

In May of 2009, the VHA sent a draft of their proposed directive, called “Providing Healthcare for Transgender and Intersex Veterans,” to NCTE to have them be the point organization in assuring the directive’s language looked correct in every way. With the help of trans lawyers and TAVA, NCTE put together a wonderful directive that would greatly improve how transgender veterans will be treated. The VA received our corrected version in July of 2009.

What the directive does cover is all the things that are available to other veterans, such as psychotherapy for PTSD, mammograms, prostate exams, pap smears and other important medical services, which had been denied to many transgender veterans in the past. This directive does indeed ensure that transgender veterans will be treated with dignity and respect.

I will not show the entire directive, because it may not be the final version. It has three pages total, with one page of definitions, a half page of references and the rest covering what the VA can and cannot do for transgender veterans. The language we will show you is from the draft of the directive we sent to the VHA and may have some tweaking before they release it. Sounds like we stepped into the ENDA territory.

Here are some of the important parts as they appeared in the revised draft:

– This directive does not apply to patients who receive benefits under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA).
– A diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is not a pre-condition for receiving care consistent with the Veteran’s self-identified gender.
– All staff, including medical and administrative staff, are required to treat as confidential any information about a patient’s transgender status or any treatment related to a patient’s gender transition, unless the patient has given permission to share this information.
– Diversity awareness training, (which educates staff on providing unbiased, respectful care to ALL Veterans) is available to supervisors and employees.

The following has to be said in bold capital letters for the good of those who will try to spread lies about this new directive. “THE DIRECTIVE SAYS THAT THE VA WILL NOT, DOES NOT AND CANNOT COVER SEX REASSIGNMENT/GENDER RECONSTRUCTION SURGERY.” That particular restriction is written into the Public Law that the VA has to follow in order to provide health care for veterans. It cannot be overridden by a simple directive change. However, it might be affected by other recent federal rulings. We’ll have to see.

As I stated, the VHA received our changes in July. They told us we would see it come out in August . . . then October . . . then February . . . and here it is May, a year from when we started making the changes, and still no directive.

To those LGBT people fighting for the repeal of DADT and the passage of ENDA, does this sound familiar? The difference is that this is not something Congress has to vote on. It’s a directive that can be implemented in a heartbeat and not a law that takes time to pass the House and the Senate. What is with the Obama Administration’s VHA when they hold back a simple directive that will instantly help part of the veteran community? I’ll let the conspiracy theorists play with that one. All we ask is to stop sitting on this and put it out to the VA medical facilities. It that so hard?

Since July of last year, when the VA had this directive in their hands, several transgender veterans have contacted TAVA saying that they had been treated badly at the VA, so we know that it could have prevented this if it had been introduced. And, even if these issues happen after implementation of the directive, the veterans would finally have it in hand to give them more clout when talking to the VA Patient Advocate. What is holding up the process? Who in the Administration is preventing this from coming out?

TAVA hasn’t been sitting idle since July. We have faxed a letter to the current DVA Secretary, retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki and his secretary assured us he read it. Nothing happened. In early March, I personally presented the problem to the top administrator for Rep Joe Sestak, a retired Admiral and a champion for veterans’ rights, and Rep Sestak read the information. Sestak then sent me a letter saying he was “investigating and will respond soon.” Since then, he entered the final stages of a Senate race to replace Senator Arlen Specter and won. We hope to hear from him soon.

Other people have spoken to Representatives and Senators on our behalf, including NCTE, but still nothing happens. We wait for people to do the right thing, while transgender veterans have their basic health care denied. This issue will probably not cause a blip on the LGBT radar, and no one will be handcuffing themselves to the front doors of the DVA building. The transgender veterans will have to go it alone on this, as they have all along. The directive will eventually come out. We just hope it’ll be sooner than later.

Seems that the subject of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has gotten hotter than a dark-colored car in a Phoenix summer. Straight media, straight bloggers, gay media and gay bloggers have all chimed in with their opinions, comments and condemnations of this very discriminatory law. It all started when President Obama said he wanted to repeal DADT during his State of the Union Speech.

The Palm Center in Santa Barbara, CA sent out a list of “recommendations” on what they can do to help the Pentagon Working Group on gays in the military work this issue out smoothly. They are:

• Consulting existing literature as a roadmap;
• Assessing the Impact on Unit Cohesion Properly;
• Consulting troops for relevant information rather than to ask their permission for reform;
• Sending study teams to Britain, Israel, Australia, and Canada; Using an appropriate standard for assessing the likely impact of change;
• Consulting research on the timing of implementation;
• Noting that leadership and consistency are more important than second-order effects; and
• Correcting for biases introduced by “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

This looks to be a very good plan of action, but notice something is missing.

Through all of this, a part of the LGB**T** community gets intentionally left out. Once again, the Trans American Veterans Association will raise their voices to not only say that trans people should be allowed to serve openly, but will insist upon it.

Of course, this has never been a popular stance with gay and lesbian people who want to claim that because DADT only covers “sexual orientation” and that trans people are not affected by the law. (Could someone please bring out that dead horse again?) Let me remind those whose reality is something akin to what Alice saw in Wonderland. We have records, as does SLDN, of straight and asexual trans people who have been harassed under DADT and kicked out. And, as was pointed out in previous articles, trans people can be gay, lesbian or bisexual. DADT AFFECTS TRANS PEOPLE, TOO.

As I have said countless times in the past, the military has no concept of the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. To them, a heterosexual crossdresser is gay. A person who wishes to live the rest of their lives different from their birth sex, no matter who they are attracted, is gay. They only care about exercising their right to the legalized bigotry that DADT gives them.

Now, I’m hearing other trans people spouting defeatist attitudes toward ever seeing trans people serving openly in the military. Guess what. Some already have. We have passed onto SLDN several people who were allowed to start their transition before getting out. They used this information to help other trans people who were being forced out under DADT. Some even legally changed their name before getting out, assuring their DD-214 would have their new name. Another individual was called back to active duty AFTER she completed her transition and reported to SAC Headquarters during the first Gulf War. They had no problem with her change.

We have also pointed out that trans and trans-like people have served in every war this country has fought, since the beginning. It has been estimated that there are between 200,000 and 300,000 living trans veterans in the US today.

Add to all of this, Canada, Great Britain, Israel and Thailand are known to allow all trans people to serve openly. Australia and Spain allow only their trans men to serve openly. As been pointed out in the past, Canada allowed trans people to serve BEFORE allowing gay, lesbian and bisexual people could serve. The wheel has long since been invented for this.

We are also hearing the “hermaphrodite scare” cycling through the hatemonger organizations. “We can’t have hermaphrodites serving in the military!” Ah . . . reality check time. They’re already there.

According to medical science and the figures collected by the Intersex Society of North America, one in 500 people on planet Earth have some form of intersex condition. With 1.47 million active duty troops and another 1.46 million in the reserves, there are nearly six-thousand people in uniform who are intersexed. Seems the Pentagon is not too worried about this, so why should the rest of us be?

If the military wanted to weed out all intersex individuals, they would have to perform expensive special tests and medical exams by experts in the field. One of the tests would be to check the sex chromosomes on all three million service members. In the civilian world, that can cost somewhere around $800 dollars each. That would come to a total addition to the Defense Budget of another $2.344 billion dollars. Of course, in a military world famous for $1500 toilet seats and $700 hammers, you think they will pay only $800 for each test? Seems to be a hefty amount of tax dollars to spend on placating the hate mongers’ “concerns.”

And, we also heard the “bigotry-for-profit” groups hollering, “If we let gays serve in the military, we’ll have soldiers wearing dresses!” This is obviously coming from people who have never served in the military and have no concept of military rules and regulations. You see, the military has these clothing things called “uniforms.” It’s been sort-of a tradition with militaries since . . . oh say . . . before the ancient Egyptians.

Militaries today get real testy if a person is even slightly “out of uniform.” They are not noted for having a sense of humor when it comes to this. The military goes so far as to regulate size and type of earrings women can wear. Men cannot wear any earrings. So, the people who think male soldiers will get to wear dresses on a whim are doing nothing but instilling fear in the uneducated masses so they can convince them to send money to fight this scourge. The “bigotry-for-profit” groups are sending their children to college off the hard-earned money of ordinary Americans. It’s a scam worthy of the snake-oil salesmen in the old West.

Interesting enough, since DADT doesn’t have “gender identity of expression” in the language, it means that it doesn’t prevent trans people from serving in the military. For the most part, there are just policies and rules keeping trans people out of the military. President Obama may not be able to overturn DADT with an Executive Order, but he may be able to use one to allow trans people a chance to serve openly.

However, I doubt that any of the mostly-gay organizations would lift a finger to lobby the White House for that if it was proven possible. The incremental mindset many of the people running those organizations would not allow trans people to get something before gays and lesbians do. At least not in the good ‘ol U-S of A.

But, as we can all guess, President Obama will not be willing to spend one thin dime of his political capital to issue such an Executive Order. It becomes a moot point.

Here’s what trans people will face if they serve in the military or try to join after DADT is repealed. There is a policy in place preventing trans people from enlisting, and all the reasons the military used to kick them out before DADT will come back into play. Some uneducated commanders will think that because DADT has been repealed, their trans troops will be allowed to serve. I’m sure there will be people there to set them straight.

I feel that the repeal of DADT will put the wheels in motion to a day when trans people will be allowed to serve openly. This will not be an easy process, but if people are willing to stop throwing their hands in the air and giving up, then these rules can be changed. The trans community needs to work together with allies and ignore the perennial naysayers and those with a defeatist attitude that populate our community.

The repeal of DADT will not send intersex people to their recruiters in droves to sign up. And, if they did, so what? They have already served in honor. The repeal will not force male soldiers to wear dresses, regardless of what the hate mongers say. The repeal will take a tiny bit of pressure off of the trans troops, but they will still have to hide.

Even if trans people got the chance to serve openly, most would never tell anyone about being trans. The stigma that society has put on trans people would not be erased in an accepting US military, anymore then it does with trans people working in an accepting company. There will be a lot of work ahead of us if trans people want to serve openly in the military. We will never know if we can fix it if we don’t try.

The impending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell hangs over Bigot Americans like a specter of doom that will reach biblical proportions. In other words, they lack a strong grip on reality. They will do anything it takes to instill fear on the unknowing masses, stopping short of predicting the coming of The Rapture. Well, maybe they won’t stop short of that.

In this endless process of misinformation and out-and-out lies, the one part of the LGBT community that they like pointing to in order to generate the most fear are transgender people. They will always gravitate to the worn-out, standard line from the Bigot’s Handbook (Volume 17, 5^th Edition, page 963,) “Men in dresses.” If all else fails, they can always throw out “Men in dresses,” even if it has nothing to do with transgender people. To Bigot Americans, ALL gay men wear dresses. That’s BS to the max. Hell, I know several trans women and lesbians who wouldn’t be caught dead in a dress.

Let me show the important points in this latest round of lies that the BAs like to gloss over or don’t wish people to know about.

(Break)

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell does not cover gender identity or expression.

It should have, but sadly it doesn’t. No one thought that transgender people actually served in the military. The possibility was too outrageous to everyone, including gays and lesbians. They forgot about Christine Jorgensen. We were nothing more than an after thought once again.

The military thinks that anyone who wishes to change their sex is automatically gay. However, transsexuals will still be subjected to discharge under different rules after DADT becomes history. Also, any man caught crossdressing off duty will be subjected to these same rules.

I’m wondering if anyone could dodge the bullet on this by saying they were gay and pointed out that DADT has been repealed. Some may get away with it if they have a stupid commander, but I wouldn’t recommend this path. It could catch up to them later. The best bet would be to have the Department of Defense address this issue separately so transgender people can also serve openly, like they can in six other countries.

Military people wear standard uniforms.

All I can say to this is “DUH!” We have an all-volunteer military, so everyone serving asked for that job. If a person takes a job, then they follow the rules set down in the workplace. Plane and simple. Besides the military, many other jobs require a person to wear a uniform. If you do the work, then you dress the part. Men will NOT be wearing dresses while on duty. Reality is not a Korean War sitcom.

In all the state and local jurisdictions where laws have been passed to protect transgender people in employment – some going back to the early 1990s – there has not been one case where a man came to work wearing a dress and got fired. Workplaces have dress codes that are gender specific, so if a person wants to keep their job, then they will follow these guidelines. However, dress codes should not be used as a weapon to prevent transsexuals from transitioning. It would be the same in the military.

The area where Bigot Americans seem to have a problem pertains to a transsexual who begins living full time in their target gender. The BAs insist that no one can change their sex, so transsexuals should be considered “men in dresses.” What about “women in pants” when it comes to FtMs? I don’t seem to hear that bantered around much.

Luckily, a good portion of large corporations and many smaller companies now understand the process and allow their transsexual employees to wear the gender specific clothing or uniforms appropriate for their new gender. So, that means that if a male-to-female transsexual is allowed to transition in the military, they would not be considered “men in dresses.” Corporations already have a handle on that and so would the military.

Some gays and lesbians refuse to discuss transgender people in the military.

The Transgender American Veterans Association has heard over and over and over that when DADT gets brought up, transgender people have to be left out. When this first came up, the excuse we heard was, “DADT only covers sexual orientation.” TAVA knew that transgender people had been targeted and discharged under DADT, but without any proof, the ones protecting the integrity of the wording in the Military Readiness Enhancement Act could easily blow us off. The specter of “men in dresses” scares them as much as it does the Bigot Americans.

But, the excuse given to keep us from being covered has now been proven to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I have to keep bringing up the TAVA Survey, because the facts can no longer be ignored. We have the proof of what we have been saying all along, but the guardians of the bill still will not listen. Their “baby” has grown up to a whole new world and it needs to reflect that new world.

What is wrong with creating a whole new bill that allows all LGB AND T people to serve openly, instead of just repealing the existing law? The new bill covering all of us would not only trump the existing law, thus repealing it, but allow for transgender people to serve openly in the military. When the legislators originally wrote the bill, we had a Republican-controlled government, so they went for the bare bone. We now have a government who will pass a more comprehensive bill, so why are the gay and lesbians working on this issue still running scared? I’ll tell you why. “Men in dresses.”

As I stated above, six countries allow transgender people to serve openly. Canada, UK, Israel, and Thailand allow all of their transgender people to serve, whereas Australia and Spain allow FtM transsexuals to serve openly. If they have figured it out, then I would hope that America is smart enough to also figure it out. But, the truth of the matter has nothing to do with “figuring it out.” The legislators sponsoring this bill and the gays and lesbians pushing for it lack the will power to do the right thing. Because other countries have figured this out without any problems, then we won’t be inventing the wheel. Too bad some people feel scared of doing the right thing.

Reality check on transgender people in the military.

Who are the idiots out there who think that just because a person identifies as being trans, they can’t control themselves and have to dress in women’s clothes on duty, as if they had some form of “fashion terrett syndrome?” From personal experience and from knowing hundreds of other transgender veterans, they have far more control over their gender issues then the hundreds of men who can’t control their urge to commit rape.

Some, not all, transgender military people (specifically MtF) will crossdress off duty, off base, when on liberty or leave. They shouldn’t be penalized for this. When they go back to duty, they will make sure no evidence, regardless of how small it could be, will be left on their bodies. They would not shave their legs or body hair, but would never grow a beard unless being at sea for many months, or in a war zone. Their clothes would be tucked away at a civilian friend’s house, a bus station locker, in the trunk of their car, or any other place where no one in the military would find them. Conversely, FtM military people could get away with looking as butch as possible, both on and off duty. Still, that doesn’t protect them from the DADT wolves.

Up until the 1990s and the extensive use of the Internet, transgender people in the military did not have a lot to go on when it came to the feelings they had. Most thought that no one else in the world felt like them. They knew of Renee Richards, Wendy Carlos and Christine Jorgensen, but could not be sure if their life needed to go in that direction. Many joined the military so it could “make a man out of them,” but that didn’t work. During the Vietnam Era, some join to have the Viet Cong “take care of their problem,” but instead, they came home with the same “problem’ and new ones to boot. No matter why they joined, their secret would be one they would take to their grave. The “men in dresses” BS that Bigot Americans like tossing out would be the last thing they would ever think of.

Looking back on my time in the military, I remember one thing that makes me still smile today when I think about it. When out on patrol on a submarine, we knew the very day we would return, like clockwork. In the middle of the patrol, we would have what we called, “Halfway Night.” During the celebration, we would have contests, some would sing or play guitars, I played a kazoo and others would do skits. Inevitably, there was always one person who just so happened to have all the necessary items to dress as a woman for a skit. Looking back at that, I now understand why.

The subject of gays in the military will not be put to rest, even after DADT is repealed. There will always be Americans who will never accept this, even if a decade passes without incident. A transgender person serving openly is another subject all together, yet we can serve just as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight people can. The military has set rules for uniforms, so even a transitioning transsexual will be required to dress appropriately for their new gender. And, if six other countries can do this, then so can we.

Transgender people have enough problems bucking the system on this issue without having our gay and lesbian friends make fun of us or intentionally hold us back because of being afraid that we would upset the delicate senses of the legislators. We see yet another situation where transgender people are being told, “We’ll come back for you later.” Too bad, but “later” is NOW, and we have all the proof to show why. Take your heads out of the sand and let’s do the right thing for once. And, don’t let me ever hear a gay man or lesbian use “men in dresses” when talking about transgender people in the military, even if it’s in a joking manner.

The year was 1993.  Clinton was President.  Gay, lesbian and bisexual people felt they finally had a friend in the White House.  And, even though transgender people officially started the gay movement at the Stonewall Inn in 1969, they only began finding their voices in the equal rights movement in the early 1990’s.  They had very little visibility and vertically no credibility.  We weren’t on anyone’s radar.

In that year, President Clinton wanted to fulfill a promise by making the US military safe for people, regardless of their sexual orientation, but it didn’t turn out the way people wanted.  The now infamous Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law came into affect and it did not protect people in the military based on their sexual orientation, if that orientation was something other than straight.  The law gave commanders a chance to hunt down gay, lesbian and bisexual service member in order to weed them out.  Transgender military people didn’t ask to be included, but included they were.

(Break)

Shortly after that, a new LGB organization, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN,) formed for the express purpose of legally helping military personnel who have been targeted under DADT.  They did a great job and helped thousands, but, if a transgender person came to them, they could not help because they had no one who had any knowledge about their issue.  Yet, trans people were targeted because the military thought they were gay.

My first experience with dealing with SLDN was back in 1999 when Private Barry Winchell was murdered at Ft. Campbell, KY.  I just happen to catch a news story and when they showed Calpernia Addams, they called her Winchell’s “Drag Queen lover.”  Even before Calpernia had any surgeries, one could easily tell she was a transsexual woman.

I called the club where Calpernia worked, but she had to call me back later.  In our conversation, it came to light that the SLDN leaders at that time wanted to portray her as a “gay man” so they could push the problems with DADT.  She told me that Barry was attracted to her femininity and not anything else about her.  Barry Winchell was killed because he was dating a trans woman, BUT that somehow made him “gay” in the eyes of the other soldiers and in the eyes of SLDN back then.

In January 2003, the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA) was formed to address the problems facing transgender veterans in the VA, but to also do what we could to help transgender service members who had problems while serving.  We quickly came out saying that we opposed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to show our support for our gay, lesbian and bisexual brothers and sisters in arms.  We had also heard stories of trans people being targeted under the law, so opposing it made sense as far as our mission was concerned.

After a short time, TAVA started getting requests to provide legal help because some trans services members were being targeted under DADT.  The new people in charge of SLDN were more supportive, but pointed out that they still had no person in their ranks to take on this issue, even though these trans service members were accused of being gay.  Later that changed when SLDN hired a transgender lawyer who not only began helping trans service members, but educated SLDN on the issues.

As time went on, the reasons for DADT lost all of their logic.  Prominent high-ranking military people publicly came out opposing it, while polls showed Americans overwhelmingly supported its repeal.  All of Europe allowed their LGB people to serve openly and even some allowed trans people to serve openly.  The days of DADA were numbered.

SLDN saw that the conversation about DADA had ramped up tremendously and a new law was about to be introduced, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA) that was designed to repeal DADT.  The law only had the words “sexual orientation” because that was the only words DADT used.  SLDN realized they needed to speak to the transgender community to ensure them that the way the law was written was specifically to repeal DADT and not to exclude transgender people on purpose.  Adding the words “gender expression and gender identity” into MREA made no sense and would confuse Congress people.

In 2006, SLDN, TAVA and National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) had a conversation about this very issue.  SLDN didn’t want to get angry calls and E-mails from transgender people when MREA was introduced and it only had the words “sexual orientation” in it.  They wanted us to assure transgender people that the reason we were not mentioned in MREA was because DADT had nothing to do with “gender identity or gender expression.”

In theory, they were correct about this, but in practice, the military continued targeting transgender people for being gay.  In that meeting, I agreed to go along with SLDN’s strategy, as did NCTE, because their logic was that if passed, MREA would help transgender people as well.  The one person in the meeting who didn’t want us to go along with this was TAVA’s Vice President, Angela Brightfeather.  She felt something was wrong but couldn’t put her finger on it.  She, like the rest of us, knew transgender people had been targeted under DADT, but we had no proof.

All of SLDN’s Action Alerts and press releases stated that “gay, lesbian and bisexual service members are being adversely affected by DADT.”  They knew that transgender service members were being affected.  TAVA knew it, too, but we kept our mouths shut so as not to rock the boat.  Little did we know what the future held for us.

Fast forward to 2008 and TAVA began their Transgender Veterans Survey that lasted until May 1, 2008.  The raw data from the survey made it absolutely clear that transgender people were being targeted just as much as LGB service members, with trans men being questioned about their sexual orientation at twice the rate as trans women.  At that point, TAVA’s stance changed on inclusion in MREA.

When Memorial Day came up, several people wrote articles on how much DADT has hurt our country’s readiness by discharging many critical people needed in a time of war.  The Department of Defense raised the age limit to the middle 40s.  Criminals of all kinds were allowed to serve.  People who could not get along socially and those with low aptitude scores were accepted, as long as they were straight.  All the articles kept saying, DADT affects gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.  I don’t know how many times I responded to these articles using the data from the survey, but no one listened.

That all changed when the most prestigious institution in the country, The Palm Center, published the White Paper Report on the Transgender Veterans Survey.  They lent credibility to our claims that transgender people can no longer be left out of the DADT discussion.

Here’s what The Palm Center wrote in the “Research Implications and Recommendations” section at the end of the White Paper Report:

“Survey responses make clear that transgender service members are negatively affected by the current DADT policy, even though the policy does not directly apply to them.  Transgender and other service members expressing non-traditional gender identities are often perceived as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, thus increasing the likelihood that they will be investigated under DADT.  DADT targets these service members regardless of their actual sexual orientation.”

So, what happens next?  SLDN is faced with a situation on continuing to show its support for transgender service members without damaging the integrity of MREA.  The TAVA survey has been read by Congress people already, so it is no longer a secret.  SLDN may start getting tough questions about transgender service members, which was not TAVA’s intention.

We know there are solutions to help them in answering these questions and TAVA is ready to sit down and talk with them to work out those solutions.  I am sure that conversation will be happening very soon, when the DNC Convention hoopla has calmed down.  What ideas TAVA has is not for this article.  When we have made a coordinated decision with SLDN on how to approach this new issue, everyone else will know.  We want to take a unified direction that will help all service members and not hurt any of them.

I just received an “Action Alert” from the Servicesmembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) asking me and others to send a letter to our local newspapers and the national newspapers on stating the need to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA) supports this repeal and has since Day One of our existence.  We knew back then that transgender people were being kicked out under DADT, but did not have the proof until this year with the survey we did.

I included the Action Alert SLDN sent me after my comments.  When you click onto their link, it takes you to a place where you fill out various pieces of information and it then sends you to a pre-written letter to send off to those newspapers.  You can change the words in the letter.  If you read down in the letter, you will see near the end it says, “gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.” When I saw that, I added the word “transgender” in that list and sent it out with that minor change.  Afterwards, I sent a response to Aubrey Sarvis at SLDN telling him what I did.

(Break)

I am respectfully requesting transgender people, whether you served in the military or not, to do something similar, then send Aubrey Sarvis an E-mail telling him what you had done.  You can do as simple as I did and just add the word “transgender” to the letter, or you can write a completely new letter.  You can do what Angela Brightfeather, TAVA’s VP is doing and send SLDN an E-mail stating why you will not participate in this effort until they add us in this process.  The survey backs us up and we will no longer be silent about being left out.  We didn’t ask the Department of Defense to investigate us and discharge us under DADT, but they did.  Now, both the DoD and SLDN need to hear our voices.

We are not taking this stance without a plan on how SLDN can include us and what they can say to make this addition seamless.  All they have to do is sit down and talk with us about it.

Here’s what they sent me.  Aubrey Sarvis’s E-mail address is at the bottom.

*****************************

Dear Monica,

Something amazing happened at the Democratic National Convention this week.

For the first time since “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was implemented, a major political party adopted a platform that calls for the replacement of the law with a non-discrimination policy.

The press has largely ignored this historic accomplishment, instead focusing on the big-name speakers and fancy parties. But this moment is too important for the press to ignore.

Please write a short letter to your local newspaper, telling them about the big news:

http://action.sldn.org/page/speakout/CoverthePlatform

With last month’s compelling Congressional hearing, resounding public support in a Washington Post poll, and now this platform victory, the momentum to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is clearly on our side.

We hope the Republican Party will follow in the Democrats’ footsteps and support a similar position in its platform next week.

This the first year that repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been called for in a major party platform — and with your help to repeal the law, it can be the last time it needs to be.

We can’t let this moment go by unnoticed. Use our simple tool to write a letter to your local newspaper, letting them know why the platform position is so important to you:

http://action.sldn.org/page/speakout/CoverthePlatform

Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Aubrey Sarvis

Executive Director

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

sldn@sldn.org

The Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara has released the findings of a survey, conducted by Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA), that shows that transgender veterans are being turned away and being mistreated in high numbers by Veterans Administration medical facilities.  The survey, with 827 transgender veteran participants, was conducted from December 13, 2007 to May 1, 2008.  This represents a strong sampling from what is estimated to be approximately 300,000 veterans in the US who identify as being transgender.

(Break)

Dr. Jeanne Scheper from The Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara coordinated the report and Dr. Bonnie Moradi, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Florida did the analyzing. Dr. Gary Gates, Senior Research Fellow at the Williams Institute, University of California acted as a consultant and provided guidance for survey. Professors Karl Bryant, PhD, of the State University of New York, New Paltz, NY and Kristen Schilt, PhD, of the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, wrote the White Paper report. Notice that four universities in various parts of the country contributed to the creation of this report.

The most troubling figure to come out of the survey was that 10% of transgender veterans, who currently use the VA, have at one time been turned away from receiving any service or medical help. I see this figure as being very disturbing. We served our country honorably and proudly and the VA medical benefits we earned should not be denied or diminished simply because of the direction our lives took after discharge from active duty.

Other figures and interesting information came from the report:

Job Discrimination:

“ . . . nearly one third of the survey participants reported having experienced some form of discrimination in the workplace, with approximately the same amount (31%) reporting that they believed they had not been hired for a job specifically because they were transgender. A full 15% reported that they had been fired from a job for being transgender (with 40% of those people having been fired more than once). Nearly 10% reported experiencing open, blatant discrimination from an employer or prospective employer; they were explicitly told that they were being fired (or not hired) because they were transgender.”

Violence:

“In addition to discrimination, this group reported a high percentage of experiences with interpersonal violence. 26% reported having been the victim of physical violence, and 16% reported having been raped.”

Transgender Service Members and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy:

“A full 38% reported that when they were in the military, people suspected or directly asked if they were gay. In addition, 14% had been questioned by an officer about their sexual orientation. For younger respondents (aged 18-35), all of whom had served under DADT, this finding was even more pronounced: 61% reported that when they were in the military, people suspected or directly asked if they were gay; 20% had been questioned by an officer about their sexual orientation.”

What the survey also brought up was how disproportionate trans men are being targeted under DADT then their trans sisters.

“Such effects varied significantly by gender. Trans men were almost two times more likely to report they were suspected of being gay than trans women (72% vs. 37%). They were three times more likely than trans women to have been asked by an officer about their sexual orientation (33% vs. 11%).”

VA Medical Facility Experiences:

“. . . there were many reports of interpersonal discrimination, via lack of respect from VA doctors (22%), non-medical staff (21%), and nurses (13%). These cases of interpersonal discrimination ranged from what many veterans describe as “typical” – refusing to change to gender-appropriate pronouns, failure to use a new name consistently – to the extreme – refusing to look at transgender patients, referring to them in dismissive ways, refusing to treat them for general medical care. One FTM respondent noted, ‘I was told by a religious clerk that I should just go away because I was an insult to the brave real men who were there for treatment’. Another MTF respondent noted, ‘I am asked about my genitals and my plans for SRS regardless of whether or not it has relevance to my treatment’.”

And:

“ . . . one MTF respondent recounted the following experience: ‘A nurse pulled my partner out in the hall of the VA Hospital where I was an in-patient’ [and said], ‘You know that is really a man, don’t you’?”

There were several Implications and Recommendations that came out of this survey, involving all of the above areas of discussion. The one thing that appeared in that section was a section from the VA’s mission statement:

“We are dedicated to providing high quality, comprehensive health care to veterans in an environment that fosters trust, respect, commitment, compassion and excellence. We serve as a major resource for health services, education and research that benefit our patients, their families, the community, the network and the nation.”

As far as I’m concerned, the VA has a very long way to go to live up to that mission statement when it comes to this country’s transgender veterans.

Finally, the survey showed how transgender people are treated while they are serving this country. Many felt harassment and abuse by others and were investigated for being gay regardless of what sexual orientation was at the time. It shows that transgender service members can no longer be ignored in the discussion of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We are also a target under that failed policy and people pushing for its repeal need to realize that we have to be included.

In conclusion, I hope that this new document will help in our continuous struggles to become equally treated while serving in the military, equally treated while using the VA and considered equal citizens in the great country of ours. We served this country and we served proudly.

After three and a half months of dribbling out raw data for things such as job discrimination, violence and statistics associated with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Transgender Veterans Survey Report has now been published. You can read the entire report on the Transgender American Veterans Association web site. Some of the information I will present here has been seen before, while other statistics will be revealed for the first time.

The idea for the survey was presented to the TAVA Board in mid November of 2007 and after creating 117 questions, the Board approved the survey and we placed it on SurveyMonkey.com, a web site that has an excellent reputation with those who conduct surveys. The survey started on December 13, 2007 and ended on May 1, 2008. Between May and August, the Palm Center located a person to analyze the data and then located two people who could write the report. Even thought it took three and a half months for the Palm Center to finish the report, this is record time compared to how long this process normally takes.

Again, the full report can be read at Transgender American Veterans Association web site.

(Note: Also posted on PFLAG’s blog.)

For years, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been the official witch-hunt policy that gave the US military open-ended permission to ruin the careers of any person they suspect were “homosexuals.” It never had anything to do with whether the person actually acted upon their sexual orientation, or even if the person was really gay or not. It mostly stems from the Department of Defense’s archaic and narrow view of what they think should be gender-normative behavior for men and women, including sexual activities. Basically, you don’t have to be gay, or act gay, or be sexually active with a same-sex partner, as long as they think you’re gay. They hold all the cards.

It’s the famous oxymoron of “Military Intelligence” in play here. This is why transgender-identifying service members also find themselves snared in the DADT trolling nets that commanding officers like to throw out every so often. Maybe they have to “catch their limit” to get promoted. Who knows? But, we do know for sure that transgender service members need to be factored into the DADT mix when the discussion comes up.

(Break)

Over 12,000 gay, lesbian and bisexual service men and women have been discharged under DADT. We may never know how many of those discharged were really transgender-identified people. We also don’t know how many transgender people who were discharged under DADT that did not get counted in the above number. We do know that some have been sent packing and DADT was the excuse the military used.

We have recently heard the words “gender non-conforming” in the DADT discussions. This should not be used as an absolute definition to describe transgender service members. Gender non-conforming indicates that the person acts or expresses themselves in a manner not stereotypical to their birth gender. This means a male who exhibits some stereotypical expressions or mannerisms of females, or visa versa.

A person does not have to be trans to appear gender non-conforming. In many cases, transgender people will exhibit hyper-masculinity or femininity to mask how they really identify. In this case, it would be better if we let the military person self-identify themselves as being transgender rather then saying that those who do not conform to stereotypical mannerisms are also transgender-identified.

In a recent article by Steve Ralls called, “Turning Point for Troops & Their Families,” he mentioned some survey statistics that come from my recent article called, “Transgender Military People and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” posted on June 25, 2008. I will repost those figures and elaborate on them.

“One of the questions we asked was, ‘Did anyone ever suspect you were gay or asked if you were gay’? Out of the 801 people who answered that question, 302 said, ‘Yes’. We also asked, ‘Have you ever been questioned by your commanding officer or any other officer because someone said they thought you were gay’? 799 people answered that question and 109 of them said ‘Yes’. It seems that by these questions, transgender people are very much at risk for being targeted for being discharged under DADT.”

The figures come from the raw data of the Transgender American Veterans Association’s Transgender Veterans Survey, conducted from 12/13/07 to 5/1/0/8. From the time the survey ended, until today, the Palm Center in California has been helping to provide the appropriate people to analyze the results and to help in putting together the final report, which should be out sometimes next week at the earliest.

It is very important to note that even though the figures look impressive, we have to adjust them for those who actually served since DADT went into affect. Over the years before DADT, others have also been asked if they were gay. Making those adjustments, we see that 237 people who took our survey spent either all or part of their military service from July 1993 to today. Out of those, 95 answered “Yes” to the question, “Did anyone ever suspect you were gay or asked if you were gay?” On the other one, “Have you ever been questioned by your commanding officer or any other officer because someone said they thought you were gay,” 34 of them said “Yes” to that.

All of this shows that transgender-identified service members have always been asked about being gay. It goes back to what I said in my other article:

“The military cannot distinguish between sexual orientation and gender identity. As far as they are concern, if a male likes to wear women’s clothes or a woman wants to change her sex, then those people are gay. They don’t know any better and most refuse to be educated about it.”

Plane and simple, we are equally at risk. There maybe far less of us and we may not have added to the overall total by that much, but we can no longer be ignored in this discussion. The mindset has always been that since the law was written to cover sexual orientation only, then we would confuse people by including transgender people. My question has become, “How can we confuse people who already think transgender people are just gay?” Regardless of what our sexual orientation really is, we have been targeted and kicked out for being gay.

I say we just let them go on thinking we are gay. It means our numbers are included in the total, our people’s stories are told and our voices are heard in this fight. Whenever DADT is mentioned or written about, I would love to see people start saying, “This law affects gay, lesbian, bisexual AND transgender service members.” This was one fight we didn’t asked to be included in, but it appears we didn’t have a choice. If they want to throw us into the mix, then they better be prepared to hear us on the Hill. We will be there, proudly standing beside our LGB brothers and sisters.

Guest blogger Dr. Nathaniel Frank is Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center at University of California, Santa Barbara, and teaches on the adjunct faculty at New York University. His scholarship and writing on gays in the military and other topics have appeared in numerous publications and he has been interviewed on major television and radio programs. His book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, will be published in March, 2009.

Last week, the Palm Center released a report authored by four retired flag officers that called for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military. The report marked the first time that a flag officer in all four service branches thoroughly analyzed the current policy and recommended ending the ban on open service by gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Following its release, Dixon Osburn, co-founder and former executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), wrote a critique of the Palm Center report at The Bilerico Project.

Osburn, who left SLDN last year, is considered by many to be a true hero for his tireless efforts on behalf of service members who have been adversely affected by the rules governing gay service, and the Palm Center hopes that Osburn will continue to play a valuable role in the national conversation about “don’t ask, don’t tell” as he has for so many years.

(Break)

Guest Blogger Dixon Osborn (Cross posting from The Bilerico Project)

Dixon Osburn is Co-founder and former Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

The Palm Center at the University of California Santa Barbara this week published a new report by a “study group” of four flag officers calling for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In issuing the report, the four flag officers have joined five dozen other generals and admirals that have called for repeal. The growing chorus for repeal from the highest ranks of our armed forces should be cause for celebration.

The report’s findings are indeed groundbreaking. For the first time ever, four flag officers have reviewed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in some depth and, according to the Palm Center, found that the law “prevents some gay troops from performing their duties, that gays already serve openly, that tolerance of homosexuality in the military has grown dramatically, and that lifting the ban is ‘unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion.’”

(Break)

Despite the significant and good findings, the Palm Center’s Study Group report, makes several recommendations, without analysis, that are as bad as the cure, and may significantly undermine efforts to achieve full equality under law. The Palm Center commissioned the report, and the flag officers agreed to participate on the condition that the Palm Center not influence the analysis or recommendations. It just goes to show you have to be careful what you ask for.

The Palm Center Study Group report’s first and primary recommendation is that “Congress should repeal [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] and return authority for personnel policy under this law to the Department of Defense.”

Aubrey Sarvis of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) rightly told The Washington Blade that Congress should adopt the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which would not only repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but codify a law of nondiscrimination to protect lesbian, gay and bisexual service members.

By returning authority to regulate gays to the Pentagon, the Palm Center Study Group proposal allows the Pentagon to reinstitute a regulatory ban on gays in place of the law, just as it had done from World War II to 1993. The authors prefer that the military regain authority to regulate personnel matters in this area, but there is no guarantee that we would like the result coming out of the Pentagon. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace recently called gays “immoral.” I doubt he would be leading the charge for equality. The Palm Center’s Study Group report banks on a precarious hope that the military will do the right thing.

The report’s recommendation also means that the fate of gays in the military can change at the whim of each new Administration or Secretary of Defense. During one term, gays may be welcomed, only to be banned by the next leader. In the past, we have seen the military send openly gay troops to the Persian Gulf only to discharge them when they returned home. We have seen past gay bans that have given commanders discretion to retain or dismiss gay troops, leading to arbitrary results. Our LGBT service members deserve the peace of mind that law protects them from whim, discomfort and prejudice.

The Palm Center Study Group’s second recommendation is that “the Department of Defense should…[maintain] current authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and service regulations to preclude misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and unit cohesion.” The recommendation leaves intact Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which criminally punishes service members, regardless of sexual orientation, for consensual sodomy. Returning the authority to the Pentagon to regulate gay service members, leaves open the door that it could impose regulations that would administratively separate gay service members for sexual conduct.

There are other portions of the Study Group’s recommendations that are troubling.

One section prohibits acts committed for the purpose of “satisfying sexual desires” which mirrors language in the current regulations implementing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Yet, today, the Pentagon defines such prohibited conduct to include handholding and pats on the back. Another section recommends prohibiting sexual conduct “prejudicial to good order and discipline and unit cohesion.” Some military courts have defined any same gender sexual conduct as “prejudicial to good order and discipline and unit cohesion.” One should be very concerned by the use of the same language here.

Another section states that “telling” should be allowed, but considered a “personal and private” matter. It is not clear whether “public telling” is prohibited, or exactly what that means. The current implementing regulations to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell use similar language, calling sexual orientation a “personal and private matter.” Under current law, however, “personal and private” means “absolute secrecy.” A violation of absolute secrecy results in discharge. The use of the words “private and personal” was a sleight of hand used by the drafters of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to make the discrimination sound more palatable. Again, one should be deeply troubled by the use of similar language here.

The Study Group’s recommendations are not only problematic in substance, but politically. There are now two recommendations in the public domain for Congress to consider – the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which repeals Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and implements a law of nondiscrimination and this, which does not.

I appreciate that the Palm Center avows that it had no say in the final recommendations. It is an academic research institution, even though its research is singularly focused on repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. One can only hope that leading advocates for full equality will be able to argue that the report published under the Center’s banner does not reflect the opinion of the experts on the issue.

Some might argue that the Study Group’s recommendations reflect a more realistic compromise. More Members of Congress (and military leaders) might be willing to support repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell only if there is no further legislation and the issue returns to the Pentagon for further deliberation. We are not at that point, however.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act has been introduced in Congress only twice, and it has more co-sponsors this session than last. Members on the House Armed Services Committee have promised the first hearings on gays in the military since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – a significant milestone. Political experts predict that the Democrats will substantially increase their majorities in the House and Senate in November, and with that possibly produce a majority solidly in favor of repeal. Senator Obama has stated he supports the Military Readiness Enhancement Act and would sign it into law if Congress passed it and he were President. Why would anyone suggest that we compromise now?

There are good parts to the Palm Center’s report. I welcome the fact that four new flag officers support repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The findings and analysis are compelling. The recommendations flowing from the report, however, have the potential to set fourteen years of progress on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell back on its heels. Those who support full equality will have their work cut out to undo the damage.

In about a week, we will once again celebrate one of our country’s patriotic holidays, Independence Day, also known as the 4^th of July.  The other two major patriotic holidays are Memorial Day and Veterans Day, whereas Flag Day is a minor one that people seem to miss.  Inevitably, on the three major patriotic holidays, LGB people have a desire to write articles about the need to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  I am fully supportive of the need to repeal this stupid law.  What I’m not happy about is that in these discussions and articles, transgender veterans are always left out.

I’m writing this article a week before the 4^th of July to point out why it is time that transgender people should be included in the DADT discussion and included in the upcoming articles written about it.  Transgender people are at just as much risk of being kicked out under DADT as LGB people are and we now have proof of that.  There should be no excuse for any upcoming articles to leave us on the cutting room floor.

(Break)

The Transgender Veterans Survey, which is being analyzed at this very moment by the Palm Center in California, has some rather interesting numbers in regards to transgender veterans and DADT.  A total of 827 transgender veterans took the survey, but not all of them answered every question.  One of the questions in the survey was what type of discharge a person received and out of the 797 people who answered this question, seven said they were discharged under DADT.  We must keep in mind that some people were still serving when they took this survey.

Notice that the number is not “Zero.”  This alone should be proof that we should be included in the discussions.

One of the other things to keep in mind on why the number is so low is that there are not nearly as many military people who identify as being trans than there are those who identify as being gay, lesbian or bisexual.  Plus, most of the people who took the survey didn’t serve while DADT has been in affect.  We had four WWII veterans take the survey and many Vietnam Era veterans who also took it.

Two other factors need to be considered in why the number is so low.  One is that many trans people are not really sure about the feelings they have and so their gender identity has not been fully realized while they were in the military.  Many LGB people are fully aware of their sexual orientation in their early teen years.

Also, trans people are very good at hiding their situation.  It’s not that LGB people cannot hide as well, but the fear of getting caught can lead to worse situations than just being discharged.  Some trans veterans have stories of being thrown into the brig for being trans.  The great ability to hide it is shown by the fact that 86.2% of the people who answered the type of discharge question got out with an Honorable.

The military cannot distinguish between sexual orientation and gender identity.  As far as they are concern, if a male likes to wear women’s clothes or someone wants to change their sex, then those people are gay.  They don’t know any better and most refuse to be educated about it.  Based on two other questions we asked, many transgender veterans had been questioned about their sexual orientation.

One of the questions we asked was, “Did anyone ever suspect you were gay or asked if you were gay?”  Out of the 801 people who answered that question, 302 said, “Yes.”  We also asked, “Have you ever been questioned by your commanding officer or any other officer because someone said they thought you were gay?”  799 people answered that question and 109 of them said “Yes.”  It seems that by these questions, transgender people are very much at risk for being targeted for being discharged under DADT.

The time has come that whenever Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell pops up as a topic of discussion, we have to start saying that this policy affects gay, lesbian, bisexual AND transgender military people.  We will surely come across a knowledgeable person who knows the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity and asks why trans people are included.  All we have to say is that we have proof that they have been affected by DADT because the military cannot tell the difference.  The law still says “sexual orientation,” but it is made to include transgender people simply because of how the commanding officers interpret the law.

For those who plan on writing about DADT for this up coming patriotic holiday, they need to be fully aware that if you leave out the “T,” then there will be plenty of us who will be “T’ed off.”