An observation from someone who is not part of the trans community but has observed — and participated in — social movements since the 1960s. I’m thinking my way through this, so please take it as a “rough draft.”

The priorities you list are all fundamental issues, but they are individual-centered in that, while they guarantee trans persons some basic individual rights, their impact on the wider perception of the trans community is perhaps not so broad. Marriage equality and open military service, however, have that wider impact, I think, in terms of public perception, particularly military service. That is, if barriers to service are removed and trans persons are seen to contribute to the security of our country in the same way as everyone else, I think that will support a radical shift in attitudes, in much the same way as decorated gay and lesbian service members made it obvious to almost everyone that sexual orientation should be no barrier to open service.

The value of that is that it feeds back into acceptance of trans rights in general, as more people come to see the trans community not as “other” but as “Americans” — that is, “us.” I think that has been one aspect of the fight against DADT by the gay and lesbian community, and I don’t see why it wouldn’t hold true for the trans community as well.

Interesting question, and certainly one we should be asking. My view is that with the limited resources that we do have, our focus should be on those issues with the greatest impact, and those issues that cause the least drain on our advocacy resources. Open military service, as admirable a goal as it may be, fails both of those litmus tests.

The original short list you posted would seem to be a solid representation of those issues that effect the entire community. Open service does not at all fit this list. Everyone needs housing and healthcare, whereas open service would only benefit those currently serving, and those of recruitable age (or younger) who may want to. That could only be a fraction of our community. I would love to see us addressing those issues, in as much as I would love for those to be the only issues left to address, but we are not there yet, not even close.

I would also argue that open military service would create more backlash than just about any other issue on the list, and thus drain more resources. Yes, medical care, as one example, is a contentious issue and will continue to be a huge fight, because those standing against us can readily tap into the disturbingly large “if the Government spends a dime on anyone but me then they must be Socialists” crowd for support. And yes, all of our goals become an ugly fight with the “Jesus was a bigot, just like me” groups. But, and the LGB fight for open service showed this pretty clearly, if you really want to see the irrational rage come up in these people, add guns and uniforms. They may hate us, but there is nothing they love more than the military. And yes, the LGB community won the DADT repeal fight. But, it is important to remember that prior to Clinton signing DADT, the LGB identified were subject to the same rules that the Trans* community currently is. Thus they had to live through many years of that vile policy before full LGB admission was achieved. It is easy to look at the amazing advocacy of the last few years and believe open service is attainable, viewed through the lens of history, it has been one hell of a protracted, multi-decade fight. I would argue that we do not have the resources for such things.

I would also argue that we do not even have the ability to mobilize all of our resources. I will use myself as an exemplar, and admit my position is biased in doing so. Do I support open trans* service? Of course, in as much as I absolutely support the right to self determination for all humans, and especially the Trans* community. But, would I put forth a focused effort to see that happen? I have to answer, probably not. As stated, on the social level, as a matter of equality, I fully support the effort. But, there is another part of me that finds irony in the fact that in the draft era, people spent great energy searching for ways to be excluded from the military, and now, sans draft, we are fighting to be allowed in. The creepy pacifist in me believes we had that process right the first time. Which is not an insult to those who choose to serve, as I do respect that. It is merely a means to point out that, lukewarm support, is likely to be common from within our community. Not much is accomplished by those who are halfhearted in their support, thus creating a drain on those fully engaged.

To summarize, my position is that once we have full, federal civil rights protections, equality in housing, employment and public accommodations, and reasonable, accessible healthcare, then open service is a fight worth having. Until then, the needs of the many have to outrank the wants of the few.

Would we not accomplish the same thing by way of work place protections? In fact, is it not arguably true that it was openness in the workplace that allowed the LGB the visibility to address marriage and open service?

Is military service not a special part of the larger employment arena. I am not nor have been in the military. I recognize I do not understand the military mind. We hear service, duty, honor, leadership, self sacrifice and many other terms regarding the people who serve in the mlitary. We also hear it called a profession as well as protecting others. Since I do not have the mind or experience of military, I can only surmise and I surmise military service is a very special subset of employment. Equal employment opportunity means equal opportunity for trans people as well to serve.

The Pentagon study of employers who have implemented non-discrimination policies bolstered their argument for allowing DADT repeal (by rebutting all of the stereotypes and scare-tactics thrown out by the anti-gay side)…

One of the ironies in this area is that because ENDA has languished in Congress, business has stepped into the vacuum… thereby providing the military concrete data on how this is a non-issue in the workplace — and in industries that are high-risk and have many of the same “close-quarters” issues that came up in the repeal debate. Now that DADT is gone — and even the top Marine is okay with Marines bringing their same-sex partners to the ball — it takes away one more argument for not passing ENDA.

In terms of priorities — which is what Autumn was asking about — ENDA and non-discrimination in public accomodations / housing have to be higher on the list than military service… but the best way to affect change in the military may be through the Veterans Services and ensuring equality of care for transgender veterans.

I don’t see it necessarily as either/or, but as a synergistic combination. Yes, certainly, openness in the workplace contributed greatly to the public shift in attitudes, simply because more people realized that they knew someone gay, but there is a certain cachet to both marriage and military service that simply is not present in workplace protections — to note just one recent example, you don’t boo soldiers, no matter what part of the political spectrum you occupy. And don’t forget that both marriage and open military service have been part of the gay agenda (if you’ll pardon the expression) since at least the early 1990s — these are not recent issues. It’s not my place to set priorities for the trans community, but I did want to make the point that there are very broad implications to opening access to such fundamental social institutions as marriage and military service. The anti-gay groups are well aware of that, which is why the battle over DADT repeal and marriage equality has been so bitter and public. Success on those two fronts puts a group into the mainstream in a way that nothing else can, and that’s of immense importance.

Whether or not open service is a priority for the trans community, could pushing for open trans service help leverage other (some would say more pressing) needs? For example, I’m fully expecting that the repeal of DADT will hasten the fall of DOMA and hasten the support of ENDA. The reason is because nobody wants to deny active duty or a veteran of decent treatment.

Can’t you hear it now? “The let me put my life on the line for our country, but I’m refused a job at WalMart because I’m gay?” Or, “I lost this leg in Iraq but you’re going to deny me the right to settle down any marry my husband?”

These are gay specific voices right now, with T being a tag-along. When Ts can finally serve openly, they can make these same statements and compel this military-lauding country to consider protecting their rights on their own merits, not just as a LGB tag-along.

I’m not trans (although I’m gender non-conforming), so I don’t have a vote in this discussion. But that’s my observation from the position of an LGBT community sibling.

I feel betrayed by Autumn. For the longest time, she has stated that the two groups that will help the trans community advance the most are the youth and veterans. Veterans don’t become veterans unless they serve, and Autumn has (up until now) been a strong supporter of having trans people serve openly. As previously mentioned, showing that trans people are patriotic makes them more acceptable in other American’s eyes.

People act as if this is something we have to have Congressional approval before it will happen. DOMA and ENDA do, and they will take a lot of resources. But, for trans people to serve openly in the military, we just need to change regulations, like they did in eight other countries. We don’t have to kiss Congress’ ass for this. And, there are dedicated people already spending their “resources” to work on this issue, while those other issues get barely touched. If you don’t want to help in this issue, then leave it to the people who do, but don’t be surprised that this gets done before ENDA passes.

And, I am angry that people want to use the DSM as an excuse for not allowing us to serve. Bullshit! The other eight countries all follow the DSM and if they can flip their middle fingers at it, then so can we for all the same reasons. It didn’t stop Canada in 1998, or the British, or even the Polish.

I don’t see what got you second guessing your support for this Autumn? You got a lot of splainin’ to do the next time we talk, and I’m not going to be so nice as I am here.

I’m asking the question. I believe as Laurel indicated — I believe that pushing open trans service will help other trans community goals in putting the inequities to the fold. In other words, I’m 100% for bumping the issue up into the top trans community priorities — but I do it with the realization that it will either take more resources, or redirected resources from the small amount of resources trans community has, to achieve open service.

As to indicating DSM-IV is a barrier, I believe that DSM-V will relieve some,if not most, of that barrier. The problem is that the pushback against open service from social conservatives and the religious right is that trans people — especially trans women — are mentally ill. And, we kid ourselves if we don’t see that listing of gender identity disorder as a barrier, but I believe the change to gender disphoria will mean it will become a barrier that with enough time and resources we can break down.

We will see. There will be push back. There will always be push back. We have never had anything happen without push back. The DSM has been used by the bigots on many other occasions. We still won many of them.

With this, I am following my favorite saying, “There is no shame in failure, but there is in failure to try.” You can bet TAVA will try. Glad you’re still with us.

You’re probably going to like my follow-up piece to this one, where I spell out some things our LGBT non-profits can do to support open service for trans people, but then talk about how trans people are going to have to contribute their time and money to send a message to those non-profits if they want these organizations to make open service a priority.

um…In my opinion,Trans inclusion in the military is taking place quitely and slowly. Ones and twos are coming out to military medical professionals and asking for the minimal things. A therapist to talk to once a month or more often for those with PTSD or Depression. Access/permission to start Hormone Replacement Therapy…
One’s and two’s come forward to physicians who do not know anything about GID or gender issues and handing those military members who step in to that breech the resources, information and tools to help both the military member and the physician along the way to support the person to their end of service…proving along that way that the person may be Trans but they are not an issue, problem child or a stereotype but a full person who would still serve if only they could be themselves openly.
I have to thank the Gay and Lesbian service members on this one. The various entities who yelled and screamed that it would be the end of the world if Gays and Lesbians were allowed to serve openly now have to STFU about it becasue everyone sees that its a NON-ISSUE!
Give it a few more years, push gently but keep pushing with knowlege, experiance and facts and I’m sure we’ll get there in a few years.

Question: Is there a barrier against intrasexuals entering the military?

If so, I’d think that it might be useful to consider if working on both at the same time may help.

There is and we are.