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.

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.

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)