Connect with us

Transgender Life In The US Military: Hiding In Plain Sight

Published

on

Guest author Brynn Tannehill shares the stories of three transgender members of the U.S. military and how they hide in plain sight, especially as transmen

Usually when someone thinks about the period in the military prior to the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) they remember people keeping a very low profile. They think of hiding, denying and generally staying closeted to others in the military. For those who served prior to the implementation of DADT the closet was an even deeper and darker place for camouflage, cover, and concealment.

Legally, transgender people in the military are still at a point similar to the implementation of DADT in 1993. Being transgender is still considered a mental disorder with atypical sexual interests by the military medical system, much like homosexuality was viewed in 1941 for more than 50 years. Yet somehow there are transgender people who are hiding in plain sight. They deny nothing and are out to significant numbers of people within their unit. This sort of situation would have been almost unthinkable in the 1980s for lesbian, gay, or bisexual people in the military, but anecdotally this situation seems to be increasingly common for transgender military people.

Jake, a Transman

One example is “Jake.” He is an active duty junior officer and a transgender man. He has been on prescribed testosterone for just under a year. This past summer Jake changed his name to a masculine one, and had chest surgery while transiting between units. While with his previous command, Jake had come out to a few of his peers and some people had noticed his voice beginning to drop.

Nonetheless, when Jake reported to his new command it was impossible not to have to explain what was going on. It caused a considerable amount of confusion among the enlisted people in Jake’s new unit because the new lieutenant who showed up looked and sounded like a man, but the chain of command kept addressing him with female pronouns. Jake had to fix the situation quickly, and so he sat down with his First Sergeant three days after he checked in.

“I sat down with the First Sergeant, and he hinted he already knew what was going on,” Jake said in our interview. “I told him the official story is that I am a lesbian. The unofficial story is that I am a transgender man and I go by male pronouns outside of work. The First Sergeant took the position that he was okay with it, and it was none of his business anyway. But said we needed to talk to the Captain very soon.”

“My First Sergeant and I sat down with the Captain shortly afterwards. We gave her the same official and unofficial positions. She (the Captain) had been feeling the same awkwardness about the situation as others. She seemed to look at it the same way the First Sergeant did, and seemed concerned about making sure I understood the risks. But she seemed willing to just let it ride for now.”

When asked about how it affects him at work Jake told me, “The troops are good with it. They steer away from pronouns and just call me “LT.” I have been surprised by how accepting younger folks are in the military and in the civilian world. They’re much more accepting than the previous generation. I’m just thankful for the support I have had.”

Mick, a Transman

“Mick” is an enlisted soldier on active duty. His situation is a little bit different–he isn’t out to the chain of command above his supervisor, but is out to everyone else in his shop. He has been on testosterone for close to a year as well, and people had noticed the changes after a few months. Mick decided that he would come out to his shop supervisor during his annual performance review.

It went well.

“She was supportive, and mostly seemed concerned with making sure I was doing this safely,” Mick said. “I told the shop one by one, and got a good feeling from all of them. Sometimes, I would try to gauge their reactions before I told them about being trans by telling them I was dating another trans man.”

In a shop with five other men and three women, this openness has benefited everyone. “I was a good performer before, but I have gotten even better since then,” Mick observed. “Better physically, my relationships at work have improved, guys at work feel more comfortable around me, and matured a lot in the process. It’s worked out well for me.”

Mick doesn’t know how long this could go on for, but it could be quite a while. “We see officers maybe two to three times a month. They haven’t given any hint they have an idea, and if they do they’re doing a great job ignoring it.”

Still, every once in a while issues pop up. When a new sergeant checked in, he read Mick as male. However, the use of male pronouns and a female first name led him to privately ask Mick’s supervisor about the situation.

Jessica, a Transwoman

Still, other cases illustrate the adage, “all good things must come to an end.”  Jessica’s” experiences are an illustration of this.

Jessica is a transgender woman who now lives in her target gender full time. Previously she was active duty, and transferred to the National Guard after she left active duty. In civilian life, she works as a contractor at a large base with sensitive materials. She also works side by side with active duty military people during the week.

While on active duty, she had been a stellar performer. When she left she was at junior enlisted rank, holding down the workload of two high ranking senior sergeants who had retired on active duty. Jessica believes this had a great deal to do with why her chain of command chose to let it go when she told them six months prior to the end of her time that she was transgender and beginning transition.

“On active duty, they just ignored being trans and on hormone replacement therapy. As long as I met male standards for physical readiness training and hair they were happy with my work. Even though I did push the envelope with my hair.”

It looked as though this situation would continue when she moved and re-affiliated with the local National Guard. A sympathetic officer at the base where she works during the week handled her paperwork and swearing in. When Jessica checked in at her new unit she was very up front with her chain of command about the situation. Both her sergeant and junior officer leadership were happy to have someone with her impressive background on board. They were supportive, and seemed willing to find ways to work around the situation. However, just prior to a recent drill weekend, it all came apart.

Senior leadership above the local level seemed willing to ignore the transgender issue, but insisted on strict adherence to male grooming standards. Unfortunately, because Jessica lives as a woman full time in her professional life, this created an intractable situation. She has transitioned at work already, and a “high and tight” — the iconic military buzz cut — wouldn’t help her professional image.

Because of her honesty and outstanding previous service, the National Guard is leaning towards a medical separation for a back injury she suffered while on active duty, and an honorable discharge characterization. Still, she wishes it hadn’t come down to this.

“I got the feeling that a certain Major in particular was really trying to stick it to me and was looking to humiliate me with the whole haircut thing, then progressively segregating me from the unit by ordering me not to wear my uniform anymore… (then) to hide me away from the rest of the unit by keeping me in the NCO (non-commissioned officer) office until everyone else started sticking up for me. Either way, cutting my hair or not he wanted me out.” Jessica told me.

Jessica described meeting the officer who was pressing the issue: “The Major is in his late 30s, early 40s. He told me he was upset because I had caused him to, ‘dig through regulations for the past week in order to figure out how to deal with you.’  He told me that he already had a hard enough time figuring out how to segregate the gay soldiers from the straight soldiers when it comes to matters of barracks space, tents, showers or whatever. That he feels mixing to two together will create sexual tension problems. Then he told me that I made that situation even worse. ‘Where would I put you? With the gay males because you’re a male? Or with the gay females because you’re trying to be a girl? Do I need five different accommodations for soldiers or six? When does it stop? These are the things I have to address because of all this.'”

Jessica was surprised at the reactions of most of unit, though. “It amazes me that so many of the people that I had only just met at my Guard unit think it’s unfair. They all weren’t in their 20s or 30s either. I also had some older people in their 40s tell me they thought it wasn’t right and apologized for what’s going on.”

This outcome is fairly typical, though, according to Paula Neira of OutServe-SLDN. “The system is designed to catch trans people. This can go on for a while, but eventually it catches up with them; usually when changing commands. I think we are going to encounter more of these situations, as we did during DADT, where commands will turn a blind eye towards service members that they want to retain until a situation or higher level of the chain of command forces action.”

David McKean, former chief legal counsel for OutServe-SLDN, agrees. “As a general matter, there are several people serving ‘openly’ (to a degree) while their commands turn a blind eye. That is wonderful, but I share Paula’s assessment that the system is very likely to catch up to those members at some point. The goal there is to make sure they’re not exposed to any risk of disciplinary action if it does.”

From an anecdotal perspective, though, there seems to be some lessons to take away from what I have been seeing. The first is that trans men serving openly seems to be far more common than trans women. I could have easily included 10 more stories like Jake and Mick’s. Jessica’s story is as far as I could find a trans woman getting, and it was the only one. Mick summed up the situation from his perspective: “I think it is easier for me as a female to male transman. It always seems like the feminine is a lot more scrutinized. No one takes on a lesbian for being too masculine.”

The other commonality between all the stories of trans people serving fairly openly is that they have been surprised at how accepting younger people are about being transgender in comparison with the previous generation. This mirrors polling data which shows that Generation X is more accepting than Baby Boomers of LGB people, and members of Generation Y are even more so than Generation X. This shift in attitudes seems to bleed over to transgender people as well.

This leads to the most important question. Could rank-and-file acceptance, or at least tolerance, of transgender people in the military be as big a non-issue as LGB was? Anecdotal evidence suggests so.

 

Editor’s note: The New Civil Rights Movement is publishing a week-long series of articles about transgender people who are serving or have served in the United States military despite the present ban. All week we will be sharing the stories of real people’s lives in a considerable effort to expose the unnecessary barriers that obstruct transgender open service in military, and show why the transgender medical exclusion is antiquated and must be removed. You can read all the articles as they are published here.

 

Brynn at work cropped adjusted (1)Brynn Tannehill is originally from Phoenix, Ariz. She graduated from the Naval Academy with a B.S. in computer science in 1997. She earned her Naval Aviator wings in 1999 and flew SH-60B helicopters and P-3C maritime patrol aircraft during three deployments between 2000 and 2004. She served as a campaign analyst while deployed overseas to 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain from 2005 to 2006. In 2008 Brynn earned a M.S. in Operations Research from the Air Force Institute of Technology and transferred from active duty to the Naval Reserves. In 2008 Brynn began working as a senior defense research scientist in private industry. She left the drilling reserves and began transition in 2010. Since then she has written for OutServe magazine, The Huffington Post, and Queer Mental Health as a blogger and featured columnist. Currently, she is on the board at SPART*A. Brynn and her partner currently live in Xenia, Ohio, with their three children.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘No Place for Antisemitism’: Biden Denounces Violent Campus Protests, Hate Speech and Racism

Published

on

President Joe Biden made rare, unscheduled remarks from the White House Thursday morning, denouncing the recent violent protests on college campuses, and telling Americans there is “no place” for antisemitism anywhere across the nation. He also denounced “hate speech” and “racism,” while declaring his support for the right to peacefully protest.

“There should be no place on any campus, no place in America for antisemitism or threats of violence against Jewish students,” President Biden declared. “There is no place for hate speech, or violence of any kind, whether it’s antisemitism, Islamophobia, or discrimination against Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans. It’s simply wrong. There’s no place for racism in America. It’s all wrong. It’s un-American.”

“Violent protest is not protected,” Biden said strongly. “Peaceful protest is.”

Stressing “the right to free speech,” and the people’s right “to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard,” President Biden also declared the importance of “the rule of law.”

READ MORE: Noem Insists 14 Month Old Dog She Shot Was ‘Not a Puppy’ Sparking New Backlash

“We are not an authoritarian nation where we silence people or squash dissent,” the President also said, praising the ideal of peaceful protests, which he said are in the “best tradition of how Americans respond to consequential issues.”

“But,” he added, “neither are we a lawless country. We are a civil society and order must prevail.”

America is a “big, diverse, free thinking and freedom-loving nation,” Biden said, denouncing those “who rush in to score political points.”

“This isn’t a moment for politics, it’s a moment for clarity.”

“It’s against the law when violence occurs. Destroying property is not a peaceful protest. It’s against the law. Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduations. None of this is a peaceful protest,” he warned. “Threatening people, intimidating people. instilling fear in people is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. Dissent is essential to democracy but dissent must never lead to disorder or to denying the rights of others so students can finish a semester and their college education.”

READ MORE: ‘Antisemitism Is Wrong, But’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Pilloried for Promoting Antisemitic Claim

“Look. It’s basically a matter of fairness. It’s a matter of what’s right. There’s the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos. People have the right to get an education, the right to get a degree, the right to walk across the campus safely without fear of being attacked.”

“I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions in America. We respect the right and protect the right for them to express that. But it doesn’t mean anything goes. It needs to be done without violence. Without destruction, without hate, and within the law. And I’ll make no mistake. As President, I will always defend free speech. And I will always be just as strong standing up for the rule of law. That’s my responsibility to you the American people. My obligation to the Constitution.”

The President also responded to reporters’ questions, including saying he saw no need to call up the National Guard.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Continue Reading

News

Noem Insists 14 Month Old Dog She Shot Was ‘Not a Puppy’ Sparking New Backlash

Published

on

Embattled South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem, under fire the past week after an excerpt from her new book revealed her boasting about shooting to death her 14-month old puppy she “hated,” has repeatedly defended her actions as proof she can do hard things that need to be done.

Governor Noem, who has been considered a leading contender to become Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate, appeared on Fox News Wednesday night and blamed the “fake news” for publishing excerpts from her book, which she has not claimed were inaccurate.

She also insisted the 14-month old wirehaired pointer named Cricket was “not a puppy,” appearing to suggest that made the killing justified, as she again promoted her book so Americans can “find out the truth.”

“Well, Sean, you know how the fake news works,” Noem told Hannity (video below). “They leave out some or most of the facts of a story. They put the worst spin on it, and that’s what’s happened in this case. I hope people really do buy this book and they find out the truth of this story, because the truth of this story is that this was a working dog, and it was not a puppy. It was a dog that was extremely dangerous. It had come to us from a family who found her way too aggressive. We were her second chance and she was, the day she was put down was a day that she massacred livestock that were a part of our neighbors, she attacked me and it was a hard decision.”

READ MORE: ‘Antisemitism Is Wrong, But’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Pilloried for Promoting Antisemitic Claim

“The reason it’s in the book is because this book is filled with tough, challenging decisions that I’ve had to make throughout my life,” she added.

Noem’s dog shooting, which she recently said took place 20 years ago, has been strongly criticized by the left and right.

Earlier this week two people close to Donald Trump, his former Senior White House Counselor Steve Bannon, and his son, Donald Trump Jr., “questioned Noem’s judgement Monday on Donald Trump Jr.’s show ‘Triggered,'” USA Today reported, noting also that “both men laughed” about it.

“Bannon called Noem ‘a little too based,’ using a slang term popular on the right to describe someone who, among other qualities, speaks and acts without fear of being politically correct, and Trump Jr. said shooting the dog ‘was not ideal.'”

The Guardian, which broke the news of Noem’s dog shooting last week, reported Tuesday “apparently even [ex-president Donald] Trump sees the bad optics in having a ‘puppy killer’ as a running mate.”

RELATED: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

Meanwhile, criticism, which had been subsiding over the past few days, returned after Noem’s remarks on Fox News.

“She honestly think boasting about killing a dog who was too happy makes her tough,” observed former Lincoln Project executive director Fred Wellman. “I have served with women in combat. They endured horrible conditions. Got blown up. They were tough. Her two examples of tough are killing animals and keeping her state open as hundreds of thousands died. That’s not tough. That’s psycho.”

Calling Noem “broken,” former Republican and former U.S. Congressman Denver Riggleman said: “She wrote the book. She allowed those words to be published. Her ghost writer seems to have despised her. Exposed her. And Kristi liked it… thought it was ‘cool’.”

Democratic U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr., responding to video of Noem on Fox News, commented: “Here’s donald trump’s leading contender to be vice president defending her butchering a puppy and hawking her crummy book on rightwing propaganda tv. This is the republican party.”

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold offered this criticism:

Jared Ryan Sears, who writes “The Pragmatic Humanist” at Substack, said, “Yes, the issue is the debate on whether or not a 14 month old dog should be called a puppy and not the fact that you murdered it because you refused to train it and could not think of any other possible solution than shooting a young dog in a gravel pit.”

“Keep hawking that book,” he added.

Watch Noem’s remarks below or at this link.

RELATED: Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’

Continue Reading

News

‘Antisemitism Is Wrong, But’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Pilloried for Promoting Antisemitic Claim

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) was strongly criticized Wednesday after promoting a historically and biblically false, antisemitic claim while declaring antisemitism is wrong.

As the House voted on an antisemitism bill that would require the U.S. Dept. of Education to utilize a certain definition of antisemitism when enforcing anti-discrimination laws, the far-right Christian nationalist congresswoman made her false claims on social media.

“Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews,” Greene tweeted.

The definition of antisemitism the House bill wants to codify was created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Congresswoman Greene highlighted this specific text which she said she opposes: “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.”

READ MORE: MAGA State Superintendent Supports Chaplains in Public Schools – But Not From All Religions

What Greene is promoting is called “Jewish deicide,” the false and antisemitic claim that Jews killed Jesus Christ. Some who adhere to that false belief also believe all Jews throughout time, including in the present day, are responsible for Christ’s crucification.

Greene has a history of promoting antisemitism, including comparing mask mandates during the coronavirus pandemic to “gas chambers in Nazi Germany.”

Political commentator John Fugelsang set the record straight:

“If only you could read,” lamented Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. The Antisemitism Awareness Act “could not convict anyone for believing anything, even this historical and biblical inaccuracy. It only comes into play if there is unlawful discrimination based on this belief that targets a Jewish person. Do you understand that distinction @RepMTG ?”

READ MORE: DeSantis Declares NYC ‘Reeks’ of Pot Amid Florida’s Battle for Legalization and 2024 Voters

“Not surprising,” declared Jacob N. Kornbluh, the senior political reporter at The Forward, formerly the Jewish Daily Forward. “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been accused in the past of making antisemitic remarks — including her suggestion that a Jewish-funded space laser had sparked wildfires in California in 2018, voted against the GOP-led Antisemitism Awareness Act.”

Jewish Telegraphic Agency Washington Bureau Chief Ron Kampeas, an award-winning journalist, took a deeper dive into Greene’s remarks.

“Ok leave aside the snark. The obvious antisemitism is in saying ‘the Jews’ crucified Jesus when even according to the text she believes in it was a few leaders in a subset of a contemporary Jewish community. It is collective blame, the most obvious of bigotries.”

“The text she presumably predicates her case on, the New Testament,” he notes, “was when it was collated a political document at a time when Christians and Jews were competing for adherents and when it would have been plainly dangerous to blame Rome for the murder of God.”

“Yes,” Kampeas continues, “that take is obviously one that a fundamentalist would not embrace, but it is the objective and historical take, and *should* be available to Jews (and others!) as a means of explaining why Christian antisemitism exists, and why it is harmful.”

CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere also slammed Greene, saying she “is standing up for continuing to talk about Jews being responsible for the killing of Jesus. (John & Matthew refer to some Jews handing over Jesus to Pilate,not Herod. But also: many, including Pope Benedict, have called blaming Jews a misinterpretation)”

READ MORE: ‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.