# Transgender in the CF (merged)



## Pte.Cassie

I have a few questions about transgendered people who are currently CF members.

1.Obviously there is a zero-tolerance harassment policy, but is life in your unit different or weird, or is it pretty much business as usual?

2.What health benefits am I entitled to? (ie, counseling, specialist services, prescriptions for hormones etc.)

3.What fitness standard am I held to after hormone treatments have begun? Legally until after the SRS (sexual reassignment surgery) I am still a male, however while taking hormones for a while, I would have about the same muscle strength as a female.

4.Is there any resources available for military members with gender dysphoria? support groups, forums, etc.


Thanks in advance for your help.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Good questions for your CFRC.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The above poster is already serving and if anyone wishes to carry on this topic they can PM.
I hope all understand that there is no way on an anonymous message board this topic would stay "clean".
Thanks,
Bruce


----------



## AndrewCore

Hello all, 
I hope this topic can be approached and discussed in a manner reflecting the views of equal opportunity and the zero-tolerance harassment that all members of the Canadian Forces work and fight to maintain.
I leave soon for training for the first time since starting testosterone therapy, in other words I am about to embark on my first training experience being addressed and viewed as male. My unit and chain of command has been incredibly helpful and understanding, but can share no personal experiences or advice from a similar situation. I was wondering if anyone on this forum has experienced training as transgendered or intersexed or anywhere else on the "my parts aren't exactly what/where they should be" spectrum, and if they could offer some advice about disclosing my status while on course and dealing with the binary atmosphere as a gender variant (or at least gender aware) person. My questions come from and center around masculine-identified spaces and experiences. 
please send me a personal message to contact.


----------



## combat_medic

AndrewCore: I think you might have a great deal of difficulty finding actual first hand experience about this topic, since the issue of integration of trans soldiers is somewhat new. Particularly finding FTM experience, as it's even less common. The few soldiers I have heard of who have transitioned while CF members were all MTF. 

That being said, my recommendation would to be as honest and forthright with everyone as possible. On course, I would ask to speak to your staff as soon as possible and disclose everything, and ask them for the opportunity to address your course mates as a group. The great thing about being the one bringing this up is that you own the information. Far better than waiting for them to find out and whispering behind your back. Tell them about the hormone replacement, the legal transition, the surgical transition (if any), and what all of that means. Tell them you're open to any questions, and be really forthcoming with information.


----------



## Monsoon

I tangentially knew a FTM trans-gendered person, but only knew that he was transgendered because I had previously met him when he was undergoing the transition prior to joining the forces. To my knowledge, he did not tell any of his peers on course about it (they certainly didn't mention anything), though I presume he clued-in his divisional staff - though perhaps that may not even be necessary if you don't have any special requirements.

One man's advice - if you don't plan on being seen in the buff, don't bother confusing your peers with something that they don't need to know and may not understand. Divisional supervisors are a different matter - your current employer may be able to give you guidance there.


----------



## chris_log

Are you already a CF member going on a more advanced course, or are you headed into BMQ/BMOQ?

To be honest, it all depends on your situation 'down there'. If you're still lacking some plumbing then you MAY want to let your coursemates know as you will most likely end up nude in front of your coursemates at some point (if on basic trg). 

If you're equipped like a guy, then I'd just keep it to yourself. No one really needs to know and if it won't affect your trg then few will even care. 

Are you enrolled as a female or male? This will play a role as you will be assigned bedspaces, showers and such accordingly. If you were enrolled as a female and are still listed as a female, then thats where you will most likely be assigned (not 100% sure on CF policy towards to transgendered crowd).


----------



## JesseD

Hi Andrew! I am actually in almost the same situation. While the process is fairly clear-cut for RegForce members, it isn't so clear for reservists. Especially in terms of going on course, whereas your unit is aware and there is no issue, going on course means you'll be working with a whole different chain of command and group of people. And that could be great, or bad, depending on who you work with. That's partly why I opted not to go on course and find a Class B instead for the summer. You've got guts! 

Like you said, everyone is extremely understanding, but aren't exactly sure of the policies/how to handle gender segregation. I'm starting to believe that the information just isn't out there, and the best way to learn is by talking to those who have been through it before you (that's the tricky part!). But I'm sure you're aware that what works for others might not work for your or your course situation. Throughout my coming out, I was lucky enough to meet a few others that were ahead of me in transition, but I still had to figure out most of it on my own. Luckily my unit was on board and very helpful (where they could be).

The bathroom/showers dilemna, that's a huge one (well just like anywhere else in society) but it is especially more of a problem on course. Really, how many jobs do you know of that require you to shower with your coworkers? Essentially, you have to figure out what works for you, what you're comfortable with, and what options are available to you. Hence why you need to notify your chain of command. In the past, I know they have allowed FtM's to use separate washrooms (Ie. go up the road where single stall showers are available) instead of forcing them to chose between one or the other. However, if you have to pick one, the choice is yours. Ever heard of the rule "when in doubt, use the women's washroom"? When in doubt about your safety, usually the women's washroom is the best bet. Yeah, that sucks, I'm not a big fan either, and it goes against everything you've been working towards, but you do what you have to do right? Another advantage of the women's washroom is that it is MUCH less crowded, and odds are it might be near-deserted in most cases. It would also be easier to explain the situation to a few women on your course, so that you can shower in peace, as opposed to outing yourself to 95% of your course (men).

As for bedspace assignments, I haven't encountered that problem yet, but I've given it a lot of thought. On exercises, everyone is thrown in the same tent/building, female or male. Wonderful isn't it? As for course where they strictly enforce male and female quarters, I would assume that they would try to put you in whatever quarters matches the legal gender identification on your course information. If...

a) You have an "M" on your liscence, then you shouldn't have issues, they'll throw you in with the other boys, and problem solved and smile!

b) You still have an "F" on your driver's license, then I'd suggest talking to whoever is in charge of assigning rooms, and see if you can be switched. It is a grey area, it all depends on who you talk to. As always, you might have to educate a few people on the situation to get your point across. 

I've had many people ask me the same questions, I asked the questions, and I still don't have definite answers. Like I said, I am under the impression that since transitioning is such a grey area (with many, many shades of grey), that you need to find out what works for specific situations, and hopefully, that they would be willing to bend the rules of gender segregation. But that's just my impression, I guess we'll find out soon enough!


----------



## Greymatters

I would add that when you eventually start working with forces from other countries you be cautious in who you talk to and what you reveal.  Not all countries have such open minds on the subject of GLBT as our military does...


----------



## JesseD

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I would add that when you eventually start working with forces from other countries you be cautious in who you talk to and what you reveal.  Not all countries have such open minds on the subject of GLBT as our military does...



True, but that's exactly the problem here. Sometimes, there is NO way to hide it. 
Though, obviously none of us go around shouting it off rooftops, we do our best to keep it on the DL, and often, people won't know the difference. And I'm sure that the CF would brief you on that before you go overseas. I haven't yet heard of it happening, but I'm sure that again they would scramble to find a policy or make one.


----------



## Greymatters

JesseD said:
			
		

> And I'm sure that the CF would brief you on that before you go overseas.



Uh, brief on what specifically...?


----------



## JesseD

On the GLBTQ policies of the other countries you would be working with (considering the CF would be aware of the situation before sending you).


----------



## Greymatters

Uh, no, that was never a standard briefing topic in the past - and its unlikely to be a current one either...


----------



## ltmaverick25

Greymatters is right.  This is an area that is breaking new ground.  The result is, there is not a policy, or procedure in place to account for everything.  Those of you groundbreakers will unfortunately end up dealing with some very akward and painful situations for you, and everyone else (takling about dealing with foreign forces here).  The reality is, some countries and cultures dont accept it, and are downright hostile towards it.  This will create problems.  My advice would be to keep that information confidential.  Foreign forces do not need to know, and not all of them could be trusted to deal with that information in a manner we deem appropriate.


----------



## mariomike

JesseD said:
			
		

> how many jobs do you know of that require you to shower with your coworkers?



When you are contaminated, you don't mind stripping in the middle of the street while a fireman hoses you down in public. You feel no shame, only relief, and it's a great cure for shyness!


----------



## Greymatters

There are lots of barracks while on overseas postings where you may live in seperate rooms but share showering and washup facilities...


----------



## daftandbarmy

I must admit that I have never had to consider this issue within a military context before but, as with anyone else going through training, my advice would be to be honest, keep a good sense of humour, work harder than you ever have before in your life and prove you're just as good a soldier as anyone else in the platoon. 

Colour and gender issues tend to diappear when everyone's on day 6 of the FTX, covered in the same amount of mud and sh*t, and you still need a sentry posted at 0230 during a monsoon.


----------



## JesseD

Greymatters said:
			
		

> There are lots of barracks while on overseas postings where you may live in seperate rooms but share showering and washup facilities...



And you know what? That's fine. If we decided to stay with the military, then we are willing to accept and deal with issues that come up, whatever they may be. If I were overseas, and I needed to shower with everyone else, fine, so be it, it's part of the job, and there's more important things to be dealing with than showers. But by the time I go overseas (which isn't soon), I will be fully transitioned, and it won't really be an issue then. That's what most people don't seem to be grasping out of this, things are mostly awkward during *transition*, it's *temporary*. 

I think the original question was asked in that context: At the BEGINNING of transition, things are a little awkward, you don't fit in one box or the other, and you don't exactly know where to place yourself. That's at the beginning. 2 years down the road, you will fit somewhere, and you won't have to ask yourself where to go. 

I don't think anyone here is whining, or looking for special treatment, or to avoid co-ed showers forever, we're not, trust me. Transition is an awkward phase and people are looking for advice on how to handle it now, at this moment. 



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Colour and gender issues tend to diappear when everyone's on day 6 of the FTX, covered in the same amount of mud and ****, and you still need a sentry posted at 0230 during a monsoon.



That's the attitude I usually get! Way to go.


----------



## Greymatters

JesseD said:
			
		

> But by the time I go overseas (which isn't soon), I will be fully transitioned, and it won't really be an issue then. That's what most people don't seem to be grasping out of this, things are mostly awkward during *transition*, it's *temporary*.



Like you say, it will be a moot point by then...


----------



## mellian

Okay, so that answers some of my questions about trans people joining the military. Now I am curious if there has been any MtFs that tried joining and got enlisted. I know/heard of some (and met) that have transitioned while they are in CF, but not before hand.


----------



## bradlupa

avoiding co-ed showers not my forte but that is.  

I think by the sound of things you are willing to talk about FTM thing so just relax and take it with 1 day at a time. i know for sure that i would not hold anything against you, it was a lifestyle choice that you made and when the time comes i know that you are going to be trained to the same standard as everybody else. so in the heat it aint gonna make a difference to me on who has my back as long as it is somebody.


----------



## mellian

I read somewhere that the CF has policy about transgender people in regards to those transitioning while in service and before joining the CF, yet the exact policy is not posted anywhere that I can find. It is supposedly a decision that was made in recent years at least, so I am wondering if anyone knows of it or have access to where that policy may be written? I know the jiff of it is the trans person must of already had SRS before being accepted, but exact wording can make a huge difference as to what that means, and the reasons behind it.


----------



## brandon_

where would they stay/ sleep/ shower?  with the males, or females?  not trying to be funny.  Legit question...


----------



## J.J

Just being curious....why are you asking this question?


----------



## mellian

brandon_ said:
			
		

> where would they stay/ sleep/ shower?  with the males, or females?  not trying to be funny.  Legit question...




With those of their legal sex.



			
				WR said:
			
		

> Just being curious....why are you asking this question?



For activist and personal curiousity and interest.


----------



## brandon_

mellian said:
			
		

> With those of their legal sex.


but If they where transgender wouldn't they be both ?  or am i getting mixed up here?


----------



## Yrys

Legally, you can only be of 1 sex...


----------



## brandon_

ah, i would just find that weierd, seeing a guy with breasts. The same would be said for girls living with a girl with a penis.... aha ???


----------



## mellian

brandon_ said:
			
		

> but If they where transgender wouldn't they be both ?  or am i getting mixed up here?



The key word is '_legal_ sex', which can be different from biological sex or even physical sex. When a trans person gets a sex change or some other procedure depending on the province, they can then change the sex on the birth certificate, along with the other IDs. Legal sex has more wait legally than biological or physical sex.


----------



## J.J

Since this forum is not affiliated to DND, why not form the question to the Minister of National Defence? You will get an official answer that you can use for whatever purpose you desire.


----------



## PMedMoe

I think brandon_  meant, where would they be put during transition.  Once transition is done, then yes, put them with the respective gender.  But in between would be......let's say......complicated.



			
				WR said:
			
		

> Since this forum is not affiliated to DND, why not form the question to the Minister of National Defence?



Why?  People ask all kinds of questions here regarding CF Regs and we're usually able to answer them or point them to a source.



			
				WR said:
			
		

> You will get an official answer that you can use for whatever purpose you desire.



Not sure what you're implying here.


----------



## mellian

WR said:
			
		

> Since this forum is not affiliated to DND, why not form the question to the Minister of National Defence? You will get an official answer that you can use for whatever purpose you desire.



Like all other questions being asked on milnet?


----------



## mellian

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I think brandon_  meant, where would they be put during transition.  Once transition is done, then yes, put them with the respective gender.  But in between would be......let's say......complicated.



As the practice has been for those who have transitioned within the CF. What about those who have no prior CF experience transitioning before joining? What is the specific policy in regards to that, as in what does the CF consider 'transition done'?


----------



## PMedMoe

mellian said:
			
		

> As the practice has been for those who have transitioned within the CF. What about those who have no prior CF experience transitioning before joining? What is the specific policy in regards to that, as in what does the CF consider 'transition done'?



I knew what you were asking, just trying to clarify brandon_'s statement.  Not sure about the Regs on that.  I do know that _prior_ to transition, they must live publicly for one year as the gender they will be and there's loads of medical appointments.


----------



## dapaterson

To my knowledge, each case would be examined on its individual merits and unique circumstances.  I don't believe there is a current written policy on this, as there's not a great deal of expert knowledge available to develop and assess such policies.

The recruiters may be able to assist with this one, or may be able to provide a point of contact with more information.  but I suspect it would take considerable digging to discover how things would work in such a situation  - as it's unusual enough that there are few people with experience in handling such a file.


----------



## Occam

As the policy (if there indeed is one) is not a DAOD, then I strongly suspect that it would be a medical policy rather than an administrative one.


----------



## armychick2009

could you please clarify (since so many words are thrown around these days)....

Transgender isn't the same as hermaphrodite, right? I think that is where someone is confused (when they said, aren't they both?)... 

Hermaphrodites are born with both organs (or, parts of them... male and female, as in the recent case of Semenya, a South African runner who thought she was a woman but actually had male organs internally). 
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/semenya-has-no-womb-or-ovaries/comments-e6frexni-1225771672245

However, transgender is when the person has partaken in the actual process of changing from one gender to another. Right?  Man to woman, woman to man...


I'm not sure but I think what the person meant by getting clarification from the DND directly (and documentation) is that then you can use this to protect yourself during the process. What you do with that information, is up to you. However, I wouldn't go based on what people say here... this is hear-say as opposed to first-hand information. I don't think they meant it as a brush-off. 

Papertrails cover your butt, trust me 


Now, I think the questions they ask are legitimate. There are no gender-neutral bunks... it's men or women. And, while the CF may not object to you being in one or the other... some of the men/women there might have problems IF the gender assignment isn't complete. However, maybe it's just a matter of talking to the men/women of where you are going to and letting them know of the situation. I mean, if you're legally a woman but still have the man bit thing going on, it can be confusing. Perhaps the gov't is just suggesting have the assignment done before you join to help YOU avoid awkwardness as well. And... devil's advocate? I wonder if it has to do with the health-care cost because your healthcare becomes federal responsibility (not provincial) once you join. If you're "in transition", someone has to pay these bills. The alternative is waiting until you're in the forces (done your training, etc.) before transitioning. I know they've paid for those. It could just be the in-between-phase they're concerned about. I wouldn't call THIS discrimination because I can assure you, if there was something medically going on with me right now? They wouldn't accept me until I have the clean bill of health that I am good to go for training without any impairments. If you're in transition, are there surgeries to do? Would this happen during a training session? Would you miss out on a training that might only happen once a year because you are in recovery from surgery? Just sayin'!

Keep in mind, Canada has moved forth in strides with gays/transgender, etc... much more than the US... but many have never known someone who has done it. People are scared of things they haven't encountered before... (not scared of YOU, just scared of something different they haven't experienced before). 

And to think, in the US they still have the "don't ask-don't tell" policy!! It's a new frontier for the Canadian Forces, etc. and it takes time to bring change, no matter what that change is.  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most soldiers wouldn't really care. If you can do your job, then it probably won't be a problem. 


Maybe when you get something definitive from the DND, you can come back here and educate us on the current policies. And I'm certain I've read something here by someone in a similar situation.


----------



## combat_medic

Disclaimer: I am not aware of any policy, and this is supposition based on second hand knowledge of a similar situation, not in the CF. 

During a gender transition, a person is legally one sex, and at some point in the transition, becomes another sex legally. Typically, a person will be expected to live as the new gender for a certain amount of time before gender reassignment can be performed, and the legal gender change will not take place until the gender reassignment surgery is complete (in most provinces; the laws vary). I assume that during the transition period, the individual undergoing the transition will have special accommodations made for them, as much as that is possible with military constraints (field work, etc.). After the legal transition, they will no doubt be accommodated as a member of the new gender. 

As far as the legalities are concerned, likely the CF will adhere to the laws of the individual province in which the member resides regarding legal gender reassignment. 

And yes, a hermaphrodite is someone who is born with ambiguous genitalia, and it pretty much never happens that they would have a fully functional set of both genitalia, and is more often that the genitalia is underdeveloped, and is often surgically corrected later in life, typically near puberty so that the person has the chance to identify as a particular gender (so as not to make the wrong choice for them when they're too young to understand, and the surgery is no longer reversible). 

A transgender person is typically defined as a person whose gender identity does not match their genetic/assigned gender (the terminology changes a lot), and typically goes through the process of transitioning to their identified gender.


----------



## leroi

I think this is a question that extends beyond the Canadian Forces to all of Canadian society and laws--which the CF reflects.

This is still a bit of a gray area with regard to the practical versus the theoretical in society. It is being "pioneered" (a term I borrow from Loachman from a different thread) as we speak. For example, the human rights of transgendered individuals may be enshrined and sanctified in official Human Rights doctrine in Canada but Canadian institutions are still struggling with how to practically implement the accommodation for those existing in the twilight zone between genders. Should Canadian institutions build a third restroom, for example, for those switching to a different gender? I don't think the numbers would merit adding on such an expense nor would the the temporary transitional nature of the gender transformation. Yet this is a question that's being asked in Canada now--regardless of whether it's being asked of the CF or a municipal government building in your favorite home town.

For the person who is in the process of switching from one gender identifier to the other and for the institution, it is the in-between 'process of becoming' that may prove difficult to accommodate--in the short term. 

I seem to recall an excellent article posted to the British Military thread with regard to this topic and need to go do a search.


----------



## mellian

Sex change will only be covered if you come out and start transitioning within the CF. From what I can tell base on limited information, that will not be the case for those who came out and started transition before joining, or joining for just to get transition covered (which is totally a dumb idea).

That aside, for those who legally changed their sex without getting the full sex change (yet usually still involve some kind of medical procedure such as hysterectomy or orchiectomy) as it is optional in certain provinces along with achieving other provincial requirements, would they be accepted into the CF administratively or/and medically whether or not they started transitioning recently or years ago (which is becoming more and more of the latter). That is the scenario I am basing my question on. 

Sex change right costs around 20 000 for male to females through the clinic in Montreal, and 3 to 4 times more so for female to males. May take six months to year or so to recover from surgery, a long with however it takes to get back in shape. This is assuming there is no complications from the surgery. 

Transgender, as the umbrella definition that is commonly used, is all those who goes from one gender to the other, or somewhere in-between. Those who specifically seek to completely or mostly transition, and live as their gender identity, are Transsexuals. Appropriate term for Hermaphrodites are Intersex, which refers to those who have ambiguous biological sex physically and genetically (even if one does have mixture of both parts, their sex chromosomes can still be ambiguous like XXY, XYY, etc). 

The thing with trans people is, not all of them are easily recognizable as such, hence one cannot be so sure if they have met a trans person or not, especially if they base their understanding of trans people on stereotypes. 

A low ball estimate I have heard is there is around 30 trans individuals currently serving Canadian Forces, and more so among those who have served.


----------



## MARS

I speak from a Class A reserve point of view (not me, the members transitioning), but I also speak as someone who has first hand experience guiding one soldier and one sailor though this process.

Despite the fact that the CF has encountered this in years past and is dealing with multiple cases at present, there is no official policy that anyone has been able to articulate to me.  As someone said, they are currently examined individually, and perhaps since the numbers aren't that large and the process somewhat unique from person to person, maybe we don't need a policy - yet.

The CF won't change your gender on your ID card until a MO signs off on it.Although my local Base Surgeon seems to think he will be able to do it, I suspect it will need to go to DMedPol.  The MO won't sign off on it until the member's civilian doctor signs off on it.  Again, this member is undergoing the procedure through the civilian health care system, so really, the CF doesn't have to do much, except approve it.  

When the med folks have signed off, the sex is legally and officially changed in the eyes of the CF.  

Accommodations are made where possible during transition - this is done at a local level and does require compromise and understanding on the part of all concerned, including the individual.  In the navy, bunking is not really an issue because the sailor, if posted to a ship, will be landed as these transitions include temporary medical categories.  It is not overly difficult to accommodate someone ashore where private rooms at accommodations blocks and either private showers or designated shower times can be arranged.  You must hold briefings - harassment, etc., to reinforce existing policies.  It really doesn't matter what people's personal views and objections may be, they must and _will_ continue to act and perform in a manner that reflects positively on the CF.  While the transition is taking place, the Ship's Company has a _need_ to know about it.  If you are going to make a particular wash place out of bounds for certain times everyday, the Ship's Company needs to know why.  They need to know that Command is fully supportive of the situation and will take whatever steps are required to help effect the change and to provide a harassment and discrimination free environment.  There is more, but it is all administrative and not really germane to the questions being asked here.  PM me if anyone doesn't feel comfortable asking about these things in an open forum.


----------



## Blackadder1916

mellian said:
			
		

> I read somewhere that the CF has policy about transgender people in regards to those transitioning while in service and before joining the CF, yet the exact policy is not posted anywhere that I can find. It is supposedly a decision that was made in recent years at least, so I am wondering if anyone knows of it or have access to where that policy may be written? I know the jiff of it is the trans person must of already had SRS before being accepted, but exact wording can make a huge difference as to what that means, and the reasons behind it.



It is unlikely that you will find a (comprehensive/consolidated) policy document about the enrolment of transgendered persons into the CF - it just doesn't come up that often.  However that doesn't mean that the circumstances (particularly related medical issues) of the individual are not taken into account during the enrolment process.

A recent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision concerned the refusal to enroll a transgendered person into the CF, however the reason for that refusal was not specifically the gender reassignment, but that the person did not meet the required medical category.  (It should be noted that there have been transgendered individuals who did meet the minimum medical category and have served)  In this case, the tribunal decison was in favour of the CF.

Unfortunately, the written decision is not yet translated available in English on the CHRT site, however, if you can struggle through it in French it makes interesting reading and provides an excellent narrative about the many steps that CF medical authorities can go through before making a final decision that a potential recruit's medical condition will preclude him/her from serving.

Montreuil vs Canadian Forces
http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-fra.asp?doid=983&lg=_f&isruling=0

Some reference is made (in the decision) to the non-existence of a CF policy regarding transgendered persons, however it concludes, despite the lack of a formal written policy, that the CF does not ignore the reality of transgendered individuals, nor does it discriminate against them in recruiting.


----------



## mellian

I do not consider Michelle Montreuil a good example nor reflective of trans people as a whole, considering she is known to have initiated various lawsuits using the trans card and not the most agreeable person.


----------



## gcclarke

mellian said:
			
		

> I do not consider Michelle Montreuil a good example nor reflective of trans people as a whole, considering she is known to have initiated various lawsuits using the trans card and not the most agreeable person.



Oh, I don't think anyone's trying to make the argument that she was an ideal candidate. It's just that her case provided a good example of how the CF, despite perhaps not having a comprehensive policy, does not discriminate against the Transgendered, and is quite willing and able to accommodate their needs. Or at least that we were able to convince the CHRT of that.


----------



## PMedMoe

mellian said:
			
		

> That aside, for those who legally changed their sex without getting the full sex change (yet usually still involve some kind of medical procedure such as hysterectomy or orchiectomy) as it is optional in certain provinces along with achieving other provincial requirements, would they be accepted into the CF administratively or/and medically whether or not they started transitioning recently or years ago (which is becoming more and more of the latter). That is the scenario I am basing my question on.



How an you legally change your sex after only having a hysterectomy?  By that definition, women who are barren, would be "transgendered".  I've had a hysterectomy and I am still 100% female.  The difficulty would be in the constantly having to provide separate accommodations, washrooms, etc.  Not to mention, what standard would they have to perform on the ExPres test?  I think (at least for the CF), it's either all nor nothing.


----------



## armychick2009

I hope I didn't make it sound like you could "visibly" see or tell a transgendered person from a non-transgendered person 

Where I am from (small northern ontario city, about 50 000 folk) I know of at least five transgendered people who are friends of mine. Some you can tell... some you can not. Some have hotter legs than I do which makes me slightly jealous but this jealousy would happen with or without their transgenderedness   :

I'm comfortable with it... and if I had someone in basic who was legally a woman but still hadn't gone through the surgery, I'd be comfortable having them in my sleeping/showering area.  Just sayin'


----------



## leroi

mellian said:
			
		

> quoting mellian and bolded by me:
> 
> *The thing with trans people is, not all of them are easily recognizable as such, hence one cannot be so sure if they have met a trans person or not, especially if they base their understanding of trans people on stereotypes. *
> 
> A low ball estimate I have heard is there is around 30 trans individuals currently serving Canadian Forces, and more so among those who have served.



While it's true that "trans people may not be recognizable," I would think, if they were applying to the Canadian Forces, or in fact any employer, it would be in their best interest to immediately self-identify. It would be fool-hardy not to do so--regardless of where they were applying for a job.


----------



## Yrys

I don't see how it would be in their best interest
to do so with any employer.

There is many prejudice against transgender.
As there is against homosexuel or bisexual or ...

I wouldn't suggest full disclosure to all potential 
employers!


----------



## mellian

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> How an you legally change your sex after only having a hysterectomy?  By that definition, women who are barren, would be "transgendered".  I've had a hysterectomy and I am still 100% female.  The difficulty would be in the constantly having to provide separate accommodations, washrooms, etc.  Not to mention, what standard would they have to perform on the ExPres test?  I think (at least for the CF), it's either all nor nothing.



That is only if you applied to change the sex designation on your birth certificate, not an automatic determination. In Ontario for example, the requirement to change the sex designation on your birth certificate is having a 'transsexual surgery', which is presently understood as covering SRS, orchiectomy, hysterectomy, hormones replacement, and so on, as long at least two doctors signs off on it (one who did the surgery, and the other to confirm). From what I understand with Canadian Forces, you will be seen and treat as the sex shown on the birth certificate, unless otherwise stipulated if transitioning within the CF. So for the Expres, they would follow the standard relevant to their legal sex. 

As for performance capabilities, that is just another kettle of fish, especially in regards to sports where in the end, more about how much testosterone you have in you than sex or gender.


----------



## FDO

I have a question. While I have no doubt in my mind that transgender surgery is necessary for the person involved and in the long run will make for a better serving member. My question is why will the CF pay to have this surgery done but not for Lasik or any other type of eye corrective surgery? Not having to wear glasses would make a soldier more effective in the field when it's raining or foggy and the the gasses don't get wet. Or fogged up in cold. I know at sea I've had to take my glasses off while on watch because it was either raining or foggy. It made me a less effective lookout. Also the money that would have been saved by not having to buy me glasses every couple of years or when I've lost them or had them broken.


 I have heard that the CF is considering paying for corrective surgery. Can anyone confirm or deny this?


----------



## mellian

leroi said:
			
		

> While it's true that "trans people may not be recognizable," I would think, if they were applying to the Canadian Forces, or in fact any employer, it would be in their best interest to immediately self-identify. It would be fool-hardy not to do so--regardless of where they were applying for a job.



It really depends on the employment. If it is just an average office job with no medical requirements, then there is no need to disclose to the employer. If like the Canadian Forces require a full medical, then at that point you are obligated to bring it up as part of your medical history. Since the medical is mainly confidential, there is no need to disclose to all those you are serving with.


----------



## mellian

FDO said:
			
		

> I have a question. While I have no doubt in my mind that transgender surgery is necessary for the person involved and in the long run will make for a better serving member. My question is why will the CF pay to have this surgery done but not for Lasik or any other type of eye corrective surgery? Not having to wear glasses would make a soldier more effective in the field when it's raining or foggy and the the gasses don't get wet. Or fogged up in cold. I know at sea I've had to take my glasses off while on watch because it was either raining or foggy. It made me a less effective lookout. Also the money that would have been saved by not having to buy me glasses every couple of years or when I've lost them or had them broken.



Because Lasik it is not in the same league? Lasik is not required for your physical and mental health, where sex change is a long with being a requirement to treated and accepted as your gender identity. I mean, who has suicidal or postal thoughts simply for not having laser eye correction?



> I have heard that the CF is considering paying for corrective surgery. Can anyone confirm or deny this?



A question for another thread.


----------



## FDO

mellian said:
			
		

> Because Lasik it is not in the same league? Lasik is not required for your physical and mental health, where sex change is a long with being a requirement to treated and accepted as your gender identity. I mean, who has suicidal or postal thoughts simply for not having laser eye correction?
> 
> May not have had suicidal thoughts but have you ever walked into a warm space from the cold outside? On a ship you could wind up head first down a steel ladder on to a steel deck, or had to stand in the rain looking for a shipmate who has fallen over the side, or had the lives of others depend on you being able to see past your nose? Like I said I had no doubt about the importance of the mental health of anyone my question was a safety concern when I have the lives of others in my hands.


----------



## PMedMoe

FDO said:
			
		

> I have a question. While I have no doubt in my mind that transgender surgery is necessary for the person involved and in the long run will make for a better serving member. My question is why will the CF pay to have this surgery done but not for Lasik or any other type of eye corrective surgery?



IIRC, it's because gender reassignment surgery is covered under OHIP.  Not sure about other province's health plans.

No offense, but I could have placed a bet on how soon that question came up.  It's pretty much inevitable.  By the same token, they will cover someone having laser treatment for acne or rosacea but not for broken capillaries on the face.  Who knows why?


----------



## leroi

Yrys said:
			
		

> I don't see how it would be in their best interest
> to do so with any employer.
> 
> There is many prejudice against transgender.
> As there is against homosexuel or bisexual or ...
> 
> I wouldn't suggest full disclosure to all potential
> employers!




Yrys, you are entitled to your opinion that is the Canadian way and I respect you for it.

As an employer, I would want to know this information so I could accommodate someone with a different orientation.
I would want to be able to ensure their needs were being met and that they would not be discriminated against by others.
How can an employer accommodate for the needs of an individual undergoing this kind of transition if the employer is not informed?
How could other female employees, some of whom may be of strictest Islam for example, feel comfortable sharing female restrooms, for example, with someone who is male-almost-female going through this process but who retains vestiges of the male member and pees standing up?

Although I would not want an employee to be forced by law to disclose this information, I still think it would be in both the employee and employers best interest to disclose to ensure accommodations can be met. It is not only managers, bosses and persons in positions of hiring authority in work places who discriminate against others. Colleagues and co-workers can be the worst--in my experience anyway.

Thank goodness employers violating the human rights of others can be challenged themselves--at least in this country, anyway.


----------



## FDO

I don't have OHIP here in Toronto. I didn't have MSI when I was in Halifax. I guess it all depends on what is deemed important and I know people's comfort within themselves is very high on the list and I can understand why. I can live with and have lived with glasses. I've never had to suffer through anything disfiguring or even close to what someone considering transgender surgery must be going through. Couldn't even begin to imagine what they are going through. I just wanted to see if anyone had heard anything on any of the eye surgeries. About a year ago I heard the powers that be were considering it.

The CF does not give us money for glasses they give us the glasses.


----------



## Occam

FDO said:
			
		

> I have a question. While I have no doubt in my mind that transgender surgery is necessary for the person involved and in the long run will make for a better serving member. My question is why will the CF pay to have this surgery done but not for Lasik or any other type of eye corrective surgery? Not having to wear glasses would make a soldier more effective in the field when it's raining or foggy and the the gasses don't get wet. Or fogged up in cold. I know at sea I've had to take my glasses off while on watch because it was either raining or foggy. It made me a less effective lookout. Also the money that would have been saved by not having to buy me glasses every couple of years or when I've lost them or had them broken.
> 
> 
> I have heard that the CF is considering paying for corrective surgery. Can anyone confirm or deny this?



See the first post in this thread, in particular the bolded part.


----------



## mellian

leroi said:
			
		

> As an employer, I would want to know this information so I could accommodate someone with a different orientation.
> I would want to be able to ensure their needs were being met and that they would not be discriminated against by others.
> How can an employer accommodate for the needs of an individual undergoing this kind of transition if the employer is not informed?



While it may make sense for those who transition in the work place, what real purpose would a trans person have to disclose themselves when gaining new employments? Doing special accommodations to someone that does not need it just to satisfy others is a form of discrimination in itself. 



> How could other female employees, some of whom may be of strictest Islam for example, feel comfortable sharing female restrooms, for example, with someone who is male-almost-female going through this process but who retains vestiges of the male member and pees standing up?



Welcome to Canada, where everyone is different and live their own lives in their own ways! 

Seriously, there are stalls in restrooms, whats between one's is normally not shown, and why would trans women still pee standing up? Oh, and technically trans people are accepted according to Islam, as per Saudi Arabia and Iran anyway.  



> Although I would not want an employee to be forced by law to disclose this information, I still think it would be in both the employee and employers best interest to disclose to ensure accommodations can be met. It is not only managers, bosses and persons in positions of hiring authority in work places who discriminate against others. Colleagues and co-workers can be the worst--in my experience anyway.



There comes a time that a trans person can fend for themselves without the need of special treatment.



> Thank goodness employers violating the human rights of others can be challenged themselves--at least in this country, anyway.



For every win, there has been more losses.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> IIRC, it's because gender reassignment surgery is covered under OHIP.  Not sure about other province's health plans.



Sex/Genital Reassignment Surgery has not been covered by OHIP since 1998, and despite successes with OHR, Ontario Gov has no plans to cover it again any time soon, especially as other provinces have removed it from their coverage in the last year or so. 

Why is a thread with a recruitment related question moved to Training?


----------



## the 48th regulator

mellian said:
			
		

> Why is a thread with a recruitment related question moved to Training?



Because the original thread, that I merged this with, was in the training thread.  And I felt that it was the most suitable area of the two.

I apologize if this caused any offence, my intention was that relevant information would better suit users queries, on this topic, be combined in one thread.

It would make search of these types of questions, easier, as opposed to someone having to bounce around all over the place.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## Armymedic

It is my opinion that as far as the CF is concerned, "it is our club, if you want to join our club, you can join under our rules. If you do not fit into our rules, then it is up to you to meet the criteria we set out for you to join."

In the following case, it is to complete all operations (which DND would pay for if the person in question was already serving) prior to enrollment. 

Personally, I think that is fair in this case.

Here is a news article that may or may not shed light on the discussion:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jOQHpUsNMGA8BBhLUntSi74rF-yw

Transgendered soldiers fall into grey zone for otherwise open Canadian military

By Tobi Cohen (CP) – 14 hours ago

MONTREAL — Chris already has manly muscles, facial hair, a baritone voice and was accepted years ago by family and friends as a man.

But he's been told he cannot work for the Canadian military until he also gets a penis.

The story of this transgendered applicant to the Canadian Forces suggests that even in the far more liberal climate of recent years, there are still grey areas when it comes to sexual identity and the military.

The 31-year-old New Brunswicker does not want his real name published out of fear it might affect future job prospects. But he was willing to share his letter of rejection from the Department of National Defence and tell his story under a pseudonym.

The rejection letter identifies Chris as "Mr." and indicates the military would only reconsider "once a detailed assessment is provided by (a) family physician after the gender change is completed and definite gender identification can be made."

The military says it has no policies prohibiting transgendered people from serving. Spokeswoman Megan MacLean suggested questions could still arise over whether someone is deemed "medically able" to serve.

"If they try to join and are unable to medically serve, for whatever reasons, they are not recruited at the time and are told to come back once their medical situation is handled," MacLean said.

Chris has already undergone two sex-change surgeries and prefers to be addressed as a man. He says the military has forced him into a catch-22.

Here's his dilemma: he can't get a military job until he completes his sex-change procedures. But he can't afford the final $36,000 surgery unless he has a decent-paying job.

He's now filing a human-rights complaint at both the provincial and national levels and has returned to school to study social work should his policing career fail to pan out.

"The big issue is, OK, if I'm trying to get in the military, they're rejecting me because I don't have my operation," he said in an interview.

"If an employer can do that, how am I ever going to be able to pay for the operation?"

Fear for his job prospects explains why he wants to remain anonymous. His need for a good job is particularly pressing because his province's health plan will not cover the expensive procedure that would give him male genitals.

Meanwhile, he's spoken with other transgendered people and learned the recovery period is only a month. That leaves him baffled as to why the government might consider him medically incapable of serving - especially since he passed his pre-entry physical with flying colours.

He said the military risks shutting out qualified people. Many transgendered individuals never even bother with the final surgery since it hasn't been perfected yet, he said - and all these people would be left in limbo by the military.

"That's why I'm fighting right now," he said.

With degrees in criminal justice and corrections and 12 years' experience as a private investigator, he says he was told by recruiters he'd be a shoo-in for the job.

But when it came time for Ottawa to do a background check, much confusion arose. There was one glaring inconsistency when military personnel went to interview people for character references.

Some people referred to a "he" while others referred to a "she." On second glance, the military also realized he'd ticked off 'Female' in his application forms and the red flags went up.

"I put 'F' for female because legally here in New Brunswick we're not allowed changing 'F' to 'M' until our final operation," he said. "And because I'm going into policing, I was not going to be caught in a lie."

Egale Canada, a group that supports gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, facilitated the interview with the 31-year-old New Brunswicker.

The group's executive director said there's definitely room for the military to improve. The way it deals with transgendered members is one issue but the military also needs to make up for historic wrongs, Helen Kennedy said.

Prior to 1992, service members who were outed as homosexuals were driven out of the Canadian Forces. Dating back to the Second World War, many of them received dishonourable discharges which meant they couldn't have access to veterans' benefits.

Last spring, New Democratic Party MP Peter Stoffer acted on a resolution drafted by his party's Quebec wing and asked the federal government to track down those members and apologize.

He's also calling for a public apology and for veterans' benefits to be awarded to those who need them and are still alive.

He suspects the task will be tough as many veterans are probably deceased. Others will be reluctant to revisit what was undoubtedly a difficult period in their lives, but Stoffer thinks it's important and could be achieved through public service announcements.

"We discriminated against those wonderful people," he said. "We learned from it. We no longer do it.

"But the reality is, we still have an awful lot of people who've never been told yet: 'By the way, what we did was wrong. We're sorry and we're gonna help you out."'


----------



## mariomike

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Mellian Is there any cause you don't support?
> Guys chopping off their penis,George Bush is a war criminal,gay rights.....



Did you ever see the movie "Glen or Glenda"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuq1A_T3vWQ
It's director, a former Marine, "claimed that he had participated in the Battle of Guadalcanal while secretly wearing a brassiere and panties beneath his uniform."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

SFB said:
			
		

> Chris has already undergone two sex-change surgeries and prefers to be addressed as a man. He says the military has forced him into a catch-22.
> 
> Here's his dilemma: he can't get a military job until he completes his sex-change procedures. But he can't afford the final $36,000 surgery unless he has a decent-paying job.



F&#$ you.

Grab a mirror and start giving shit to the only one person who forced you into any dilemma.
Don't start something you don't have the means to finish...........


----------



## FDO

What I'm getting from this article is this guy is ticked that we won't hire him to pay for his surgery. Not once in this artivcle did it mention anything about serving his country or making a difference or helping anyone but himself. I don't care what kind of surgery you need the CF is not an employer of convienence so you can get expensive work done at public expense. 

 Dn't get me wrong I'm not against this surgery being done if after he gets in and has served or still wants to serve after the surgery. I have dealt with several applicants at the Recruiting Centre that only want to get in so they can get free medical or a college diploma. "How long do I have to serve before I can get out and get a real job after I finish school" is a line I've heard a lot. 

Same thing here. "I'll join, get the CF to pay and then when it's done I'll get out." Sorry wrong attitude!!


----------



## Steel Badger

In other news, Rubert, a 26 year old trans-species person is considering legal action following his rejection by the Canadian Forces.
Rubert, who is in the first stages of human to penguin re-assignment surgery stated: "What more can I do? I had a beak installed, I've changed my diet to herring......  They say they won't consider me a penguin until I get the wings!"


----------



## mariomike

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Rubert, who is in the first stages of human to penguin re-assignment surgery stated: "What more can I do? I had a beak installed, I've changed my diet to herring......  They say they won't consider me a penguin until I get the wings!"



Can you imagine Penguins in desert warfare? They would be lost!


----------



## FDO

They'd be ok. Tim Horon's sells IceCaps!


----------



## kratz

Think about the penguin's skills during winter warfare or ice DivEx. They'd beat everyone hands flippers down.


----------



## mellian

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Mellian Is there any cause you don't support?
> 
> Guys chopping off their penis,George Bush is a war criminal,gay rights.....



I do not support assumptions and putting words in other peoples mouths.


----------



## krustyrl

I must say, I tend to agree with you Bruce.!


----------



## mellian

SFB said:
			
		

> It is my opinion that as far as the CF is concerned, "it is our club, if you want to join our club, you can join under our rules. If you do not fit into our rules, then it is up to you to meet the criteria we set out for you to join."
> 
> In the following case, it is to complete all operations (which DND would pay for if the person in question was already serving) prior to enrollment.
> 
> Personally, I think that is fair in this case.



If the Canadian Forces did not have different standards for males and females, in would be a non-issue. Since the CF does, they depend on the legal sex of the person to determine how to refer and treat them as. Otherwise it would become a slippery slope. Yet even if that person joins as female as per their present legal sex, they still appear as male and have taken testosterone for some time, hence effectively stuck in-between. The military is not known to starting new trends, hence I can see how they rather refuse base on the medical and avoid blurring or breaking the standards set for everyone. 

Now, if the person manage to get their legal sex changed without the complete surgery (like being born in a province with looser requirements like Ontario) and transition is complete minus the SRS, it would be harder to refuse under those grounds.


----------



## FastEddy

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> F&#$ you.
> 
> Grab a mirror and start giving crap to the only one person who forced you into any dilemma.
> Don't start something you don't have the means to finish...........




Yes "Bruce", your F&#$ you, say's it all. 8)

But also a interesting thought comes to mind, why should the CF's, Provincial or Federal Government Medical Plans pay for (cutting off or sewing on a Penis or sewing up a Vagina or what ever they do), when Canadian Citizens are dying from serious legitimate Illnesses and Diseases from extended waiting lists for treatment.

Not only to consider there are resources available for this, but to ask us to pay for it. It makes as much sense as that Guy who wants to be a Penguin.


----------



## mellian

FDO said:
			
		

> Same thing here. "I'll join, get the CF to pay and then when it's done I'll get out." Sorry wrong attitude!!



The article nor the person said anything about the CF paying for the surgery, just that they need a job to produce enough income to pay for it themselves, and it is not easy finding work with competitive wages. 

The main issue is that the person is presently legally female, and New Brunswick specifically requires a Genital Reassignment Surgery to legally change their sex designation. Frustration on their part is being refused entry for generally the same reason. 

They at least ask to be accepted as male and given the opportunity to make enough money while serving in the CF to pay for that surgery themselves, and in turn fulfill the New Brunswick requirement to legally change their sex.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The Forces reject folks for lots of medical reasons that a "normal" employer would not be able to. This lad/ ladette is no different..............


----------



## mellian

FastEddy said:
			
		

> But also a interesting thought comes to mind, why should the CF's, Provincial or Federal Government Medical Plans pay for (cutting off or sewing on a Penis or sewing up a Vagina or what ever they do), when Canadian Citizens are dying from serious legitimate Illnesses and Diseases from extended waiting lists for treatment.



Because it is just as legitimate, as there are standards and regulations in treating trans people.




> Not only to consider there are resources available for this, but to ask us to pay for it.



Read the article again. Nowhere says they request the CF to pay for it, just to be accepted into the CF as male. 



> It makes as much sense as that Guy who wants to be a Penguin.



It does not as males and females are not separate species.


----------



## mellian

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The Forces reject folks for lots of medical reasons that a "normal" employer would not be able to. This lad/ ladette is no different..............



It may have been a decision made by medical, but if the reason of refusal is just because their legal sex is still female and missing the required SRS to legally change that despite being in good health and medically cleared in all other ways, it becomes more of an administration reason. 

Hence the question of the thread I started before it got merged, what if that person managed to have changed their legal sex without the SRS? Would they have made the decision? Even thought genitals are not checked by medical as per the application process?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

mellian said:
			
		

> Because it is just as legitimate



Bull!  Try telling that to someone who is still waiting for chemo after 5 months.  It's not a bottomless pit.....


----------



## mariomike

mellian said:
			
		

> Genital Reassignment Surgery to legally change their sex designation.



Christine Jorgensen ( US Army vet ) was the first widely-known individual to have sex reassignment surgery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Jorgensen
"Ex-GI Becomes Blonde Beauty"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

mellian said:
			
		

> It may have been a decision made by medical, but if the reason of refusal is just because their legal sex is still female and missing the required SRS to legally change that despite being in good health and medically cleared in all other ways, it becomes more of an administration reason.



Again I call bull........why should they accept someone awaiting [what I would assume] is a major surgery?  That's medical.....


----------



## Steel Badger

Interesting argument:

Please accept me as something I am not, but one day may be;  in order that I may be employed by you in order to earn enough money to finish transforming myself.

The main issue is that gender-reassignment is the individual's business, NOT the CF's. Just like applicants who are counselled out due to NPD use, or because of failed backchecks etc, poor Rubert the semi-penguin et al must accept that if they do not meet the criteria for enrollment they will be refused until such time as the outstanding issues are taken care of.

To put it another way,  Applicant Bloggins is refused for the CF because he owes over 20,000$ in child support. Should we employ him ( and pay him) just so he can meet the basic eligibility requirements for the CF???


----------



## mellian

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bull!  Try telling that to someone who is still waiting for chemo after 5 months.  It's not a bottomless pit.....



You are comparing a medical treatment that is not in high of demand to one that is. It costs more in terms of money and resources to cover the chemo treatment for all those that needs it than it does to cover SRS for the much smaller list of people who seek to transition and get a sex change. Sure, in triage base priorities, those with cancer will be treated first as it is more life threatening, like it has been the case so far, but it does not make it any more or less legitimate.


----------



## Steel Badger

Bruce, accept it. Mellian's right!


FOR GOD's SAKE MAN! THINK OF THE PENGUINS!


----------



## mellian

Can we stop with the penguin nonsense? Serves no purpose to this discussion apart from degenerating it and being disrespectful. Comparing transgenders to furries are not the same thing.


----------



## FastEddy

mellian said:
			
		

> Because it is just as legitimate, as there are standards and regulations in treating trans people.
> 
> Yes and that just goes to prove how much wrong there is with the System.
> 
> 
> Read the article again. Nowhere says they request the CF to pay for it, just to be accepted into the CF as male.
> 
> Okay, so I want a new Mercedes, Boo Hoo !.
> 
> It does not as males and females are not separate species.




Clever, just stick to your Coffee House Rhetoric


----------



## Teflon

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Mellian Is there any cause you don't support?
> 
> Guys chopping off their penis,George Bush is a war criminal,gay rights.....



Apparently the prejudice faced by furries isn't high up on the list



> Can we stop with the penguin nonsense? Serves no purpose to this discussion apart from degenerating it and being disrespectful. Comparing transgenders to furries are not the same thing.


----------



## kratz

mariomike,

I have not seen anyone state gender reassignment should not happen, or disagree that such a procedure aides in an individuals mental well being. mellian continues to ask why the CF is able to deny entry to applicants who have not completed their transition. As others have pointed out, the CF has denied other medical conditions, with the cavet that potential applicants can reapply and possibly be accepted, should the medical condition change (example: allergy to bee stings and imunotherapy).

If someone wants to be a penguin, all the power to them.


----------



## FastEddy

mariomike said:
			
		

> All kidding aside, I'm a great believer in suicide prevention. If this procedure helps keep some people happy, maybe it will help save lives?




Great Idea, lets sign e'm up in the Military, just what we need to fill the Ranks.


----------



## gcclarke

In this particular case, I see no reason why the person in question is currently medically unfit for duty. Since he has yet to have undergone gender reassignment surgery, legally speaking the CF would be obligated to treat him as a female. Until such time as he can afford to undergo said surgery. 

At that time, obviously there would be a recovery period. I believe the following policy (CF Health Services Group Directive 5020-72: Guidance to Health Care Providers – Sick Leave and Annual Leave) would cover how that would be dealt with. Basically it'd be the same as if I were to get my eyes zapped or my beer belly sucked out.



> Sick Leave for Elective Surgery not covered by the Spectrum of Care
> 
> 41.	There is an increasing incidence of CF personnel undergoing surgeries/ procedures that are not covered by the Spectrum of Care. Such surgeries include laser eye surgery, mammoplasty, abdominoplasty, liposuction, etc. Members are to take annual leave for such procedures as well as any related consultation, follow up, etc. If there is a complication from these procedures, CF H Svcs will provide care and assign sick leave as appropriate.


The Document is found at http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/health-sante/pd/pol/word/5020-72-eng.doc

Should the person not have enough annual leave saved up at the time of the surgery, I personally would consider that a completely valid reason for granting LWOP. Of course, that decision would be up to the person's commanding officer.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

mariomike said:
			
		

> All kidding aside, I'm a great believer in suicide prevention. If this procedure helps keep some people happy, maybe it will help save lives?



Now this is just a Monty Python skit right?


----------



## Steel Badger

Actually, I wasn't commenting on GRS.

I was using humour to draw attention to the absurdity of the argument. YOU may prefer the example I stated above re: the CF waiving basic eligilbility requirements so they can give someone a job so that that poor down trodden pers can earn enough to pay for ((Whatever)) ... in order to meet the basic eligibily requirements for the CF....

Now THAT is disrespectful.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Basically it'd be the same as if I were to get my eyes zapped or my beer belly sucked out.



So do you think you should be accepted if you were still awaiting eye zappery or rabidly obese?


----------



## mariomike

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Great Idea, lets sign e'm up in the Military, just what we need to fill the Ranks.



That's not what I said. I was referring to the silly comments I made about the operation. Not about if the CF owed anyone a job or not. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## X-mo-1979

mariomike said:
			
		

> Did you ever see the movie "Glen or Glenda"?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuq1A_T3vWQ
> It's director, a former Marine, "claimed that he had participated in the Battle of Guadalcanal while secretly wearing a brassiere and panties beneath his uniform."


Can't do it.It has 1950 style surgery stuff.That for some unknown reason freaks me out.Beheading videos...Im ok...old hospitals...not good. ;D


----------



## gcclarke

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So do you think you should be accepted if you were still awaiting eye zappery or rabidly obese?



If the person currently meets the medical requirements to enter into their trade, then yes. I've got a V4. Good enough for a CSE thankfully. Should I have been denied enrolment if I had voiced during my interview at the CFRC that I would one day like to have laser eye surgery? No. 

Again, the only "medical issue" that the person we're talking about is suffering from is the fact that he has a vagina. That in and of itself should not be a barrier to serving in the Canadian Forces. And later on down the road, when he decides to take care of that particular issue, the relevent policies should be followed.


----------



## PMedMoe

Okay, all other _nonsense_ aside, the article posted by SFB is an excellent point and I believe exactly what mellian was looking for.  Obviously, if the gender change is not physically complete, the CF is not going to accept you as an applicant.  Don't blame the CF for this policy.  They have several other enrollment criteria that people do not meet, but you don't hear about anyone pulling the "discrimination" card because they are out of shape, in debt, etc.  Well, you might, but it doesn't make a good headline does it.

I would say, to avoid complications, have the complete transgendering (is that a word?) done *before* you get in.  Also, I personally don't give a damn that you are "legally" male or female on your ID.  It's what you look like naked that will decide it for me.  After all, you have to fall into one category or another, there is no middle.

My opinion on this:



> Here's his dilemma: he can't get a military job until he completes his sex-change procedures. But he can't afford the final $36,000 surgery unless he has a decent-paying job.
> 
> He's now filing a human-rights complaint at both the provincial and national levels and has returned to school to study social work should his policing career fail to pan out.
> 
> "The big issue is, OK, if I'm trying to get in the military, they're rejecting me because I don't have my operation," he said in an interview.
> 
> "If an employer can do that, how am I ever going to be able to pay for the operation?"



Too bad, should have thought about that before you started.  Instead of blaming the CF, what not blame the NB government for not allowing you to legally change your gender?  Are you also going to blame whatever police agency you applied to as well?  Or did you even bother because they won't pay for the surgery?  There are people trying to feed and clothe their families or who are taking care of (at great expense) a sick family member in a long term care facility.  I have more sympathy for them.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Mellian, you seem to think that everyone has a god (lower case on purpose to include all faiths and denominations) given right to serve in the CF, as does the yet to be completely renovated person in the story.  You don't.  You have a right to apply, not to a job.  People get denied for flat feet, bunions, poor eyesight, deafness, mental issues, you name it.  Bruce is right, this person inflicted this situation on his/her/their self(ves)  It's not the CF's job to fix it.


----------



## medicineman

Fact of the matter is the person is still undergoing treatment for a psychological condition that can only be recticfied with this surgical procedure - if you're under care for ANY condition that requires frequent follow up, especially one that is to be dealt with surgically, you're not getting in until it's complete and you've recovered.  Add to the fact the person concerned is also being followed by psychiatry for said condition, until they've been discharged for routine follow up only, again, they won't be enrolled.  That's it that's all.  You can blow all the human rights smoke around you like, but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the right of the CF to discriminate against who they take into their employ based on current/ongoing physical or mental health issues.  Once the patient is deemed to be convalesced enough and integrated within their new body and their mental health professional has decided they're fine, they can carry on with their application.  However, we aren't here as a social welfare organization - we're here as a professional military of limited size that can't afford to hire someone just so they can end up on a medical category for however long and not be employable by us, simply because they can't afford a surgical procedure.  In short, we aren't obliged to hire this person at this time.

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Mellian, you seem to think that everyone has a god (lower case on purpose to include all faiths and denominations) given right to serve in the CF, as does the yet to be completely renovated person in the story.  You don't.  You have a right to apply, not to a job.  People get denied for flat feet, bunions, poor eyesight, deafness, mental issues, you name it.  Bruce is right, this person inflicted this situation on his/her/their self(ves)  It's not the CF's job to fix it.



This statement is full of win.

It's the army military christ what do some people expect?
Worst case senario:
Pay for my sex change so I can join then sign a 3 year contract work away from everyone else because they don't understand me get special accommodations then leave after 3 years, write a book and file lawsuits.

If someone wants to join the Canadian Forces then meet the requirements and join. 
As much as the CF wants to make itself like a business, people need to realize the military isn't like your normal kinda job in a normal job environment.




			
				mellian said:
			
		

> Can we stop with the penguin nonsense? Serves no purpose to this discussion apart from degenerating it and being disrespectful. Comparing transgenders to furries are not the same thing.



Are you on a crusade or something? 

This is called military humor. 
SURPRISE.
You find military humor when dealing with members of the military.
What's disrespectful is that guy's me first attitude.  A poster was right, not once did he talk about serving Canada. He just wants a job and the military isn't just any ol job.

The guy in SFBs is an douchbag.


----------



## FDO

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> .  A poster was right, not once did he talk about serving Canada. He just wants a job and the military isn't just any ol job.



First of all I believe I take offence at being referred to as a "poser". After 30+ years and several deployments I've proven myself!

More to the point of this thread is, this guy seems to think that we are a chairty organization. "If your out of work and need money until something comes along join the CF." We didn't allow any of the GM or Ford workers to enrol unless they met the standard and some of them were techs already trained. A lot of them had a pre-existing condition that could be cured and once it is we'll hire them. It's called citizenship! We also turned down a guy who had a degree in Rocket Science. He couldn't speak either of the offical languages of this Country. He needed a job to feed his family. We see all kinds of heartbreaking stories everyday. Some of them more heart wrenching that this. Nothing we can do and nothing we will do. Meet the standard or look elsewhere.

Sorry, there is already an army that is a charity organization. Its called the Salvation Army. Look there!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

FDO said:
			
		

> First of all I believe I take offence at being referred to as a "poser". After 30+ years and several deployments I've proven myself!



FDO,..He's a good kid and I can promise you the young lad meant to say "poster". 

Unfortunately 'spell check' doesn't fix what someone MEANT to say.


----------



## kratz

[quote author=Flawed Design]As much as the CF wants to make itself like a business, people need to realize the military isn't like your normal kinda job in a normal job environment.[/quote]

Sadly, the CF is mandated by government policy to conform to a more business like atmosphere and this is the chink in the armour that most of mellian's arguments are striking for on this issue.


----------



## FDO

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> FDO,..He's a good kid and I can promise you the young lad meant to say "poster".



Oh, Okay, In that case, secure Action Stations!!


----------



## Jarnhamar

FDO said:
			
		

> First of all I believe I take offence at being referred to as a "poser". After 30+ years and several deployments I've proven myself!


30 years +?
Son, let me tell you about the OLD days...
(typo  fixed )



> More to the point of this thread is, this guy seems to think that we are a charity organization.



That's exactly the problem.
Guess that's what we get for treating the military like a business.  
The government should be careful what they wish for.


----------



## mellian

To be clear...

My question was what is specifically the policy about trans people wanting to join the Canadian Forces. What would be the case if a trans individual who already legally changed their sex as per the requirements of their province yet did not get a complete SRS, assuming that this individual makes all other medical requirements for the CF like getting a confirmation from the individuals relevant civilian doctors that can handle the mental and physical stresses of being in military? As in, the person checks off on the application the sex that matches how they appear and live as which confirmed by their birth certificate and other legal IDs. 

The person in the article did not legally changed their sex designation, hence had to check the sex on their application that does not match how they appear and live. This will be the case until such a time they are able to get a sex change as per the requirements of their province, in this case New Brunswick. 

Hence, the decision made by the Canadian Forces as per the article does not answer my question, as the factors are different. I already stated from the beginning that Canadian Forces will treat and accept you according to the sex designation on their birth certificate as per the information acquired in the past, and earlier in response to the article where I stated and understood the reasons. 

I then proceeded to correct people about the article many on this thread misunderstood it, assuming that the trans person wanted the Canadian Forces to pay for their surgery, which is false. The individual would like to join the Canadian Forces because they want to serve, and to do so as the gender they appear and live as. They already done two other surgeries, which I am guessing was mastectomy (removal of breasts) and hysterectomy (removal of the uterus), two common female to male surgeries, plus have been on hormones replacement therapy for a while if they appear completely like a man, facial hair and all. All these would not have been possible without already seeing various psychologists and doctors, along with their approval. 

That is the circumstances indicated in the article. Still leaves the question as to what exactly the Canadian Forces policy, and the reasons behind it. In an institution and organization that has two set of standards dependent on the sex of a person, obviously what your legal sex is is important.   To give any exceptions would put the difference in standards into question and creates a slippery slope. So that leaves either asking the person to legally change their sex to match how they appear and live as that only affects one person, or remove the dual standards which would affect practically all of the Canadian Forces. In this case, they chose the latter and through medical instead of administratively.

I have yet actually stated my personal view in regards to the article, just explaining it and providing information to better understand what happened in that case. To go on and say what I believe or not on this matter would be presumptuous, a long with any other particular views. 

Yes, I agree that it is not a good idea to accept a trans person (no matter their reasons to wanting to join) into the CF before they completed their transition and resolving related psychological issues, but the completion of transition does not always require a genital reassignment surgery. Using the person in the article as an example, to even be approved of getting a mastectomy, hysterectomy, and some other surgeries a long with getting hormones, they need to live as their gender identity 24/7 for a certain amount of time like a year, and regularly see the doctors and psychologists during that time. Once proven that it is the right thing for the person, they get approval for any surgeries related to changing physical appearance. Doctors doing the surgeries requires psychological approvals for liability reasons. They also require money in exchange, which not all transsexuals can afford, especially the Genital Reassignment Surgery which can cost ten times or more than the other surgeries. 

As a result, you have many transsexuals who have the psychological clearance to get a sex change, but do not have the financial resources. For some, their gender issues is left unresolved. For most, if they live and appear as their gender, especially for many years without a problem, their psychological and gender issues is resolved and now a non-issue. So if the trans person can get proof that they are psychological sound and can handle the stress and rigors of military life like any CF member with no further numerous visits to doctors for it, then it ceases to be a medical issue. 

At that point, what does that leave? Legal Sex status and how they appear and live as. That person in the article is refused entry into the CF because of their legal sex conflicts with their appearance and how they live as, and the only way to change the legal status is to get a sex change in New Brunswick. How that happens is not the responsibility of the CF. 

If the legal sex matches how they appear and live as, and they make all of their medical requirements, does it matter if they did not have the complete SRS? There is no evidence that genitals makes any difference in how one performs, especially if it is covered by clothing and practically everyone never sees it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

You present a nice argument but you seem to think the world should just take you at face value about things like "ceases to be a medical issue" and "proof that they are psychological sound" and "no evidence that genitals makes any difference" when the world knows no such thing........





..and if genitals make no difference then why am reading this thread?


----------



## Greymatters

mellian said:
			
		

> If the legal sex matches how they appear and live as, and they make all of their medical requirements, does it matter if they did not have the complete SRS? There is no evidence that genitals makes any difference in how one performs, especially if it is covered by clothing and practically everyone never sees it.



Although you have made a good statement of the facts as you know them, you have made a common eror in lumping all aspects to be considered into a single CF that is an anonymous and faceless organization. There are a lot of potential problems for a non-gender-defined person, many of which no one would even consider until after the hiring process is done and the problems occurred.  

Bearing that in mind, this person cannot join the CF, not because of any existing rules or because the CF is a big meany, but because there are no many small complicating issues that will arise out of the case, and the CF is not a testbed for exploration. For example, these are just a few common-senses issues I can think of. 

All female members have the right to shower naked without males present; even if the CF doesnt object you can be certain that a female member somewhere will object to a non-female being present, proof being the parts under the clothing.  Of note, the CF cannot afford to build complete barracks and showering facilities for persons who do not fit into either category. 

If that person ever got arrested, or is searched as part of security or, even more common, flying from one part of the country to the other, who does the body search? Which gender of security officer will search this person.  If its the wrong choice, this person could sue the CF, the security service or the facility where it occurred.  Within the CF they can claim sexual harassment against the CF member searching them.

This person will be required to serve overseas at some time.  Other countries that this person may deploy to may have strong cultural requirements based on gender.  Canada does not need to cause an international incident just to please one applicant. 

I'm sure others here can think of even better examples...


----------



## combat_medic

> For some, their gender issues is left unresolved. For most, if they live and appear as their gender, especially for many years without a problem, their psychological and gender issues is resolved and now a non-issue.



Those two sentences are contradictory. You say their issues are left unresolved, then go on to say it is a non-issue. I would imagine this very contradiction is part of the reason that the CF does not want to take applicants until the issues are all resolved.


----------



## mellian

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Those two sentences are contradictory. You say their issues are left unresolved, then go on to say it is a non-issue. I would imagine this very contradiction is part of the reason that the CF does not want to take applicants until the issues are all resolved.



Re-read the first sentence. I said SOME, as in not all. Not all trans people are the same or dealing with the same circumstances.


----------



## X-mo-1979

The amount of tranny's that join is very small.We have innu pride month,black history month and a million different "mosaic"months forced down our throat through official email and military newspapers.Every minority I have ever worked for or with in the army usually could give a **** if he/she has a different colour skin/lifestyle and usually just works as if they are like everyone else.Cause they aint too special no matter what flavour of minority the month may be.They are soldiers.Not Black,Hispanic,Chinese.

As for the military not hiring someone going through a change of sex,is it really surprising?Whats the difference in someone coming in with cancer?Both are sick.
A person who is going to require a whole bunch of surgery,mental help,etc is not ready to serve.No doubt after they get all chopped off/extended they should be good to go right?

Also what about hormones?Wouldn't they need permanent medication for the rest of their lifes?Wouldn't this put them on TCAT?If you kick diabetics out for insulin I couldnt see why you couldn't kick "Glenda" out as "it's" body doesnt produce estrogen...and would require it...wouldnt they?
If that's the case they have no reason kicking out diabetics if these people require hormones.

Imagine being the troop warrant on that adrep..I need 2 box 7.62, 25HEAT,1 month supply of estrogen.


----------



## xena

Others have said it, and I agree, no one in this country has a right to employment.  You have a freedom to apply, but an employer (even the CF, or the government in general) is not obligated to employ you.

I remember being asked one time, while I was working at the BC Supreme Court, "Where is the part in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it says we have a right to food and shelter?"  The question surprised me for a second, then I said something to the effect that "the closest place where you might find that in legislation is a bit to the south of us - try Cuba".

Trying to use one's "rights" to force others to give you money, or a job, or anything else, is just silly, IMHO.


----------



## Greymatters

xena said:
			
		

> I remember being asked one time, while I was working at the BC Supreme Court, "Where is the part in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it says we have a right to food and shelter?"



You dont have the right to 'food and shelter' but you do have the right to 'money' - its called the welfare system...


----------



## combat_medic

For this person, their gender issues are left unresolved. They are still legally, and somewhat physically female. Why on earth should the CF take them on with an ongoing medical/psych issue?

Again, you join us, we don't join you. It's the applicant's responsibility to meet the standards. We discriminate against fat people, blind people, deaf people, diabetics, epileptics, people who don't speak the language, people with disabilities, people with mental health conditions, short people, dumb people, and EVERYONE ELSE who doesn't meet the standards. 

I don't get what you don't understand. The CF has requirements to meet, and this person didn't meet them, so they don't get in. This argument is as stupid as the "the CF is discriminating against me being a pilot because I have bad vision" argument. If you can't meet the standard, you can't fucking join! This person was not barred from service, they were told "when you fix your outstanding issues, we will re-evaluate your application." 

Can a person wearing contact lenses fly a plane? Sure they can. Can they do it as well as a person with 20/20 uncorrected vision? Likely. Can a person in a wheelchair be a clerk? Probably. Does this mean that either of these people will be taken into the CF? No.


----------



## mariomike

combat_medic said:
			
		

> We discriminate against fat people, blind people, deaf people, diabetics, epileptics, people who don't speak the language, people with disabilities, people with mental health conditions, short people, dumb people, and EVERYONE ELSE who doesn't meet the standards.



Re: "short people". Correct me if I am wrong, but they removed the old height requirement.


----------



## combat_medic

I'm not talking about being 5'0", I'm talking about being 3'2". And I believe (though would have to find supporting documentation) that there is still some kind of height requirement.


----------



## mellian

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Both are sick.



Cancer negatively affects one health and life threatening. Being trans is treatable, and can be in good health and physical shape.  



> A person who is going to require a whole bunch of surgery,mental help,etc is not ready to serve.No doubt after they get all chopped off/extended they should be good to go right?



Like any surgery, need recovery, and usually the person can regain their full health and physical fitness. 



> Also what about hormones?Wouldn't they need permanent medication for the rest of their lifes?Wouldn't this put them on TCAT?If you kick diabetics out for insulin I couldnt see why you couldn't kick "Glenda" out as "it's" body doesnt produce estrogen...and would require it...wouldnt they?



Can take a while before menopause can start damaging one's health. Diabetics lives are dependent on insulin in the short term.  





> Imagine being the troop warrant on that adrep..I need 2 box 7.62, 25HEAT,1 month supply of estrogen.



There is over thirty trans people in the Canadian Forces presently. Whether any of them are in the Combat Arms or ever placed near warzones like Afghanistan, is unknown.


----------



## mellian

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You present a nice argument but you seem to think the world should just take you at face value about things like "ceases to be a medical issue" and "proof that they are psychological sound" and "no evidence that genitals makes any difference" when the world knows no such thing........
> 
> ..and if genitals make no difference then why am reading this thread?



Of course in general humanity still thinks to much with their genitals than with anything else, but I meant no difference in the context of being a day to day soldier/seaman/airmen in the Canadian Forces, in regards to having a good health and physically fit, to shooting a gun or piloting an aircraft or driving a tank, etc.


----------



## X-mo-1979

mellian said:
			
		

> Cancer negatively affects one health and life threatening. Being trans is treatable, and can be in good health and physical shape.
> 
> Like any surgery, need recovery, and usually the person can regain their full health and physical fitness.
> 
> Can take a while before menopause can start damaging one's health. Diabetics lives are dependent on insulin in the short term.
> 
> 
> 
> There is over thirty trans people in the Canadian Forces presently. Whether any of them are in the Combat Arms or ever placed near warzones like Afghanistan, is unknown.



So how does one get Hormone pills out to someone when the feces hits the fan?I aint talking about how it effect their health in the future.How does one supply someone with required medication when there isnt a way to get it out to them.I know being in Ottawa or montreal you can go to the pharmacy.However outside your little bubble world there are places where you cant do that.

Explain also WHY would we take someone who is going to be useless to us for a couple years?Why not wait until they fix themselves?Hence what I said about the cancer patient.You wouldnt accept someone to sit around on PAT platoon while he gets his outie turned inny.Its a waste of our money and time.If your not deployable your not employable

So explain to me why anyone would hire someone who is going to need years off work and cost the army a bunch of money?When you can just get a normal healthy recruit?

It would be like me buying a 1957 dodge with the tires all missing,rusted out and no engine at 4 times the price I would pay for a new dodge.IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE.Neither would be recruiting a recruit that needs a whole bunch of work,costs a whole bunch of money,and maybe never run right.

Hopefully a analogy of a vehicle will click something in your head.As everyone else here can't seem to explain it to you in army terms.


----------



## combat_medic

You don't think dealing with the psychological, medical, and hormonal issues of an ongoing gender transition will have any impact on performing one of the most stressful jobs on earth?! You're kidding yourself, and no one here is buying it.


----------



## Scott

Forget it folks, this is mellian's MO. Next should come the comments about us being cloe minded and right wing. And mellian, I am NOT putting words into your mouth, I am stating an opinion based on FACT.

I'll also warn you that I am starting to consider you an administrative burden because we ALWAYS have to watch this same behaviour from you: you state opinions or ask questions then drag it along a downward spiral by splitting hairs to the Nth degree. Your threads "spiral" compares to something else that spirals - when it's flushed.

I'd pay to be a fly on the wall when IF you get on BMQ.

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

mellian said:
			
		

> Of course in general humanity still thinks to much with their genitals than with anything else,



Again, you know more than Mother Nature, ......you and your made up reasoning are growing stale.......


Got any scientific facts?


----------



## vonGarvin

[stepping out of the Dark Ages]
One can no more change one's gender than one can change one's species.  Yes, one can get surgery to appear as the opposite sex, a cat or even as a vulcan and some legal authorities may recognise applications to change gender; however, it's more likely that my Shih Tzu will become a cat.  Does this surgery help people deal with their personal and/or psychological issues?  I think it does, given the apparent evidence out there.
[stepping back into the Dark Ages]
Now, as for someone who attempted to join the military in 1986, but was denied due to "ongoing medical treatment", I can assure everyone here that at one time at least (back in the Dark Ages), this was grounds to deny persons from joining.


My "ongoing medical treatment?"  I had braces.  On my teeth.  The day they came off, I literally walked across the road and re-activated my file.  I was serving within weeks.  I still serve.


----------



## Jarnhamar

combat_medic said:
			
		

> You don't think dealing with the psychological, medical, and hormonal issues of an ongoing gender transition will have any impact on performing one of the most stressful jobs on earth?! You're kidding yourself, and no one here is buying it.



100%

Transgender people may be fine physically but you're grossly understating the difficulties they face psychological.
Meillian everyone is bringing up point after point about why it's a bad idea.


----------



## vonGarvin

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Transgender people may be fine physically but you're grossly understating the difficulties they face psychological.
> Meillian everyone is bringing up point after point about why it's a bad idea.


Unless, of course, said person has completed treatments and has been declared healthy by a competent medical authority, I suppose.  Now, not being a competent medical authority.....  (and I don't even play one on T.V.)


----------



## mellian

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Although you have made a good statement of the facts as you know them, you have made a common eror in lumping all aspects to be considered into a single CF that is an anonymous and faceless organization. There are a lot of potential problems for a non-gender-defined person, many of which no one would even consider until after the hiring process is done and the problems occurred.
> 
> Bearing that in mind, this person cannot join the CF, not because of any existing rules or because the CF is a big meany, but because there are no many small complicating issues that will arise out of the case, and the CF is not a testbed for exploration. For example, these are just a few common-senses issues I can think of.



A lot of the potential problems have already been resolved and covered by existing policies from what I can tell, especially if a women serve equally with men (apart from fitness, hair, and uniform standards), gay/lesbian/bi folks are accepted and openly supported by the CF, and then all the trans people already in the CF. 




All female members have the right to shower naked without males present; even if the CF doesnt object you can be certain that a female member somewhere will object to a non-female being present, proof being the parts under the clothing.  Of note, the CF cannot afford to build complete barracks and showering facilities for persons who do not fit into either category. 



> If that person ever got arrested, or is searched as part of security or, even more common, flying from one part of the country to the other, who does the body search? Which gender of security officer will search this person.  If its the wrong choice, this person could sue the CF, the security service or the facility where it occurred.  Within the CF they can claim sexual harassment against the CF member searching them.



In terms of liabilities in general, I agree. In this example, if a women is being searched by a legally male trans women, it will and can be a problem for sure. But if the trans women is legally female regardless of their genitals, the women being searched would not be able to claim sexual harassment. Of course, women can sexualy harass other women, same goes of men sexually harassing men, and be charged for it... In the end, legal status of a trans person as more weight liabilities wise than the genitals. 



> This person will be required to serve overseas at some time.  Other countries that this person may deploy to may have strong cultural requirements based on gender.  Canada does not need to cause an international incident just to please one applicant.



How does the Canadian Forces normally handle with policy and cultural differences in general, especially if female soldiers are allowed to serve in a country like Afghanistan? It would really not be any different.



> I'm sure others here can think of even better examples...



In any specific examples that is not covered already by existing policies?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Again you are just skirting the easy issues.........someday you MIGHT be lucky enough to find out that there is a whole lot more to worry about in this job then nakedness.


If anyone has something new and useful to add then PM a MOD and they may reopen this. [or they may not]


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

From RadarGrrl  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/members/26955



> Wow...so many misconceptions!
> 
> First off, I'm going to introduce myself as one of the few members of the Canadian Forces to transition in uniform.  I joined the CF in 1987 as a radar technician, and currenly work as an ATIS technician here at Trenton.  I transitioned starting in 2003, the 8th to 'officially' do so.  (I say 'officially' because I personally know two MtF CF members, who joined the CF already transitioned, well before Sylvia Durand arrived on the scene.  I suspect we're probably well over the 30 mark by now.
> 
> Since I transitioned, there have been many changes.  First off, there now is an official policy.  I understand this from someone else I know who is in transition now.  I have yet to see it, but I do have my feelers out so that I can.  The way I understand it, a trans person does not get the status of the target gender until full SRS has taken place.  This is different from what I experienced, where I was declared 'administratively' female from the day I went fulltime.  For me, that meant female standards for everything, from new DEUs to female standards on the Express test, (a MtF person loses a LOT of muscle mass on HRT), to getting the old female CUA, (which disappeared shortly after).
> 
> I'm not going to do a Trans 101 here, because the information is readily out there at places like TS Roadmap or Lynn Conway, but anyone here can ask me questions.  I've always professed to be out and open, as you can't help anyone from inside a closet.  However, I can really only offer my perspective as a MtF transitioner, not the other way around.   There are some things I will debunk here, though...
> 
> Transition is not a choice.  Gender is hardwired before birth.  For so many of us, the only 'choice' involved here is whether or not to do anything about it, with the alternative being suicide.  Trans people have one of the highest suicide rates in the world.  But there is a treatment, one that has one of the highest success ratings in medicine.
> 
> Surgery is not cosmetic in nature.  It is more reconstructive, and uses existing tissues to fashion the new genitalia out of the old.  With the exception of the discarding of the testes (MtF) and uterus/overies (FtM), everything else is used.
> 
> Don't even get me started on penguins.  Someone's been watching waaay to much South Park.
> 
> In one respect, I can understand why one can't join up while mid-transition.  If you're transitioning, you're placed on TCat, therefore can't train.  So why bring on somebody they can't train?  However, there are a few grey areas here, especially when it comes to the guys, for whom SRS is expensive ($100k or more), as there's more than one surgery involved.  So many of the guys tend to not deal with anything beyond top surgery i.e. breast removal/chest reconstruction and hysterectomy.  These should be enough to qualify a FtM person as male, but somehow it's not.  (I guess it really is all about the penis, right guys?)
> 
> One last thing...prevalence.  You'll hear much in the media about how 'rare' TS really is, usually spouting numbers such as 1 in 37000 for the girls, 1 in 100000 for the guys.  Prof. Lynn Conway has debunked this quite effectively.  In this document, she demonstrates that the prevalence of known cases of SRS is closer to 1 in 2500, with the extrapolation that the prevalence of transsexualism be closer to 1 in 1000 or higher, putting it in the same company as Muscular Dystrophy, Multiple Sclerosis, cleft palates and Cerebral Palsy.
> 
> OK, so that's my introduction.  Fire away with the questions I know some of you have!


----------



## Sub_Guy

How much do we waste on gender reassignment?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> How much do we waste on gender reassignment?


I'm not a doctor, but I'm guessing gender reassignment surgery generally doesn't come about as a result of, in at least some cases, a lack of will or discipline (or, as mentioned in previous posts in this thread, a lack of enforcement of existing rules regarding weight/fitness).


----------



## Sub_Guy

I agree 100%, but it is my opinion that if we are going to waste money on gender assignment, then why the fuck not spend it on the people with obesity issues, I bet someone out there could argue that fact.    

In the end the 200k spent on getting these guys down, will probably save money over the long run.  (I disagree with it though)    Being a member of the CF usually comes with a free gym membership!


----------



## mkil

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> How much do we waste on gender reassignment?



A close friend of mine who is also in the CF is undergoing gender reassignment right now. I find it kind of appauling that you liken gastric bypass and other weight loss surgeries with gender reassignment. Most cases of obese patients can be resolved with dietary and lifestyle interventions. At most, a supervisor would have to provide time of work for remedial PT and counselling appointments. No amount of training, or intervention would make things better for someone who has gender identity issues. It is an endocrinological and psychological disorder that requires medical intervention. You should not pass judgement on how the DND funds medical treatments.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

mkil said:
			
		

> You should not pass judgement on how the DND funds medical treatments.



Bullshit.....................it's the taxpayers dollar and every taxpayer has a right to say what they wish on how their dollars are spent.


----------



## mkil

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bullshit.....................it's the taxpayers dollar and every taxpayer has a right to say what they wish on how their dollars are spent.



touché, my friend! I am trying to figure out a better way of wording, as I did not intend for it to sound as it came. My head is a little but stuck in French mode lately. I guess my train of thought is that even though it may seem like a waste of tax payer dollars to some, to others it is a life altering medical need that really cannot go untreated. I have seen how it affects people. Imagine that you as a man, have a horomonal imbalance that causes you to grow breasts in your mid 30`s. Would you seek medical help to deal with them? Because they are not body parts that you identify with. This is the situation my friend goes through every single day of her life. Looking down and seeing a penis when, she is a woman on the inside. That is all I meant, please take my words in the manner in which I intended them.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bullshit.....................it's the taxpayers dollar and every taxpayer has a right to say what they wish on how their dollars are spent.


Bang on!



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> In the end the 200k spent on getting these guys down, will probably save money over the long run.  (I disagree with it though)


I know I may be dreaming in Technicolour, but I'd be interested, too, in what kind of follow-up is done to see if this does save money, or increase effectiveness, in the long run.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Being a member of the CF usually comes with a free gym membership!


:nod:



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I agree 100%, but it is my opinion that if we are going to waste money on gender assignment, then why the frig not spend it on the people with obesity issues, I bet someone out there could argue that fact.


To me, the difference is that gender re-assignment is more like dealing with an internal psychological issue like PTSD - something is different inside, so we have to deal with it to keep the troopie in the game.  With obesity, unless it's psychologically triggered, there are other systems in place to deal with it as a _behavioural_ issue.

One is (generally) dealing with _who you are_, while the other is (generally) dealing with _what you do (or don't do)_.

(And yes, I know there's probably all sorts of shades of grey between the black and the white presented here - just a first shot at trying to nail down my thought processes.)


----------



## ModlrMike

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> How much do we waste on gender reassignment?



The answer is probably none. I know of one case funded by the CF. AFIK it's no longer a listed service by any province, so the CF is not obliged to provide it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The answer is probably none. I know of one case funded by the CF. AFIK it's no longer a listed service by any province, so the CF is not obliged to provide it.


Listed in Ontario since 2008 (couldn't find anything saying it's been delisted again).


----------



## mkil

The things I know are being funded by the CF for my friend as far as gender reassignment are as follows:

- genital surgery
- breast augmentation
- hormonal replacement therapy (for the rest of her life)
- psychological support

They will not fund the following:

- speech therapy
- shaving of the Adam`s apple
- hair removal
- body sculpting
- any other esthetic refinements.

Sorry I don`t have the references for this  :-[ This is only my friend`s experience, and might not reflect the threatment of every case of gender reassignment. I personally think that it should be a co-pay situation, so that each individual shows a true commitment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Let's keep the topic on track folks.

There's already a thread on gender reassignment. Discuss there.

---Staff---


----------



## GAP

Why in the world is the government or any employer responsible for gender reassignment? 

That's a personal choice and should remain so.  :


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's keep the topic on track folks.
> 
> There's already a thread on gender reassignment. Discuss there.
> 
> ---Staff---


Good point - moved & merged.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

I actually think its appaling that gender reassignment is covered, but something as simple as corrective laser eye surgery is NOT, and this would cut costs on eyeglasses.

You have to think when a mbr gets a gender reassignment surgery they get a posting of their preference, the move alone is 15k to 30k, now add up the surgery cost, and time off and hormones etc...


I am one of those people who thinks that if you want a gender reassignment A) you should shell out of your own pocket (like I will do for laser eye surgery) and B) probably should not be serving in the military with such psychological issues.  (my personal opinions)

I like how the US military looks at the trans issue.


----------



## Nudibranch

GAP said:
			
		

> Why in the world is the government or any employer responsible for gender reassignment?
> 
> That's a personal choice and should remain so.  :



Why would they fund bariatric surgery? Esp with the non-bypass, lap band procedures, all that does is make the stomach smaller - the person could choose to just eat less, instead of having that choice imposed on them via an elastic band in their innards. And yet, it is funded.
And to the tune of much more than gender reassignment, merely based on the number of pers undergoing the procedures in question.


----------



## s2184

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I agree 100%, but it is my opinion that if we are going to waste money on gender assignment, then why the frig not spend it on the people with obesity issues, I bet someone out there could argue that fact.
> 
> In the end the 200k spent on getting these guys down, will probably save money over the long run.  (I disagree with it though)    Being a member of the CF usually comes with a free gym membership!




*The total number of transgender people in CF is?* 30? 300? 3000? 30,000?

*The total number of transgender people who pass vigorous protocols to get hormone therapy in  CF is?* 30? 300? 3000? 30,000?

*The total number of transgender people who pass vigorous psychological assessments to get reassignment surgery in  CF is?* 30? 300? 3000? 30,000?

*And at the end how many total number of transgender people in CF who successfully finish the whole processes & waste  your (according to your previous comment) money?*

Getting hormone therapy and reassignment surgery is something like how easily you can get a gym membership or buy liquor in a bar?  :facepalm:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Was there a point somewhere in that gibberish?


----------



## s2184

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Was there a point somewhere in that gibberish?



Yes & No. I am not sure Sir. But, I guess I asked some questions that may make some valid points.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor

As much as I find the topic somewhat incomprhensible, I also have to note that this isn't something that comes up with often enough to develop regular policies and procedures; each case is unique and probably will be the _only_ one the people involved with will ever see in their military careers.

Still, the point about the costs of this kind of surgery vs laser eye surgery or treatments for obesity is also a point worth noting. There seems to be a certain "ad hocery" about what is and is not covered, and a comprehensive review of the cost/benefits of various forms of medical treatment applied to the operational needs of the CF is probably needed today in order to streamline and control the costs to the military as a whole. 

I will also admit a bias to the side that sees people with such deep seated issues may not be effective as members of the military, but once again we are talking about a handfull of people within a 60,000 strong organization, so it is not like the problem will overcome the organization as a whole.


----------



## chloeD33

Hello everyone and thank you for reading this. This post is what it is. Basically I applied to join the Canadian Military but was still living as a male with my documents saying (and currently saying, though soon to change) I'm male. I just started to transition to living life as a woman and have started hormones. Will I still be able to join even though I haven't had any surgerys? Little re-cap, I have always  wanted to join since childhood and have been preparing in anyway I can to join, if i have to wait until after surgery I still will although I would love to join now. Any advice or wise words will be delightful and no, i don't need a lecture on my transition or someone complaining about their personal feelings about my journey, I don't care. What I do care about is serving my country (Canada) and doing what I have always wanted to do. Thank you


----------



## mariomike

chloeD33 said:
			
		

> Will I still be able to join even though I haven't had any surgerys?



You may find these discussions of interest,

Transgender in the CF.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/79867.0
6 pages.

Transgendered lawyer's military complaint rejected  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/89007.0

There may also be some Transgender discussion here,

The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/899.0/nowap.html

As always, best to contact Recruiting.



			
				chloeD33 said:
			
		

> i don't need a lecture on my transition or someone complaining about their personal feelings about my journey, I don't care.



Not from me. I prefer to keep my personal opinions about sex, politics and religion to myself.  ( Or, at least off the internet. )


----------



## chloeD33

Thank you very much!


----------



## mariomike

chloeD33 said:
			
		

> Thank you very much!



You are welcome, and Good Luck!


----------



## chloeD33

Also, unrelated to this post.... I know someone who applied to the military and is now ready for an aptitude test. However a big s*itty family situation has came up and they need to go to another province to help out for a bit.... Since the average wait from sending the application to going for basic training is 6 months to a year could the recruitment office in their current city transfer their stuff to the other office in the other city or will they have to do a whole new application? Thanks!


----------



## Ayrsayle

It is possible to switch files to another CFRC - but will likely increase the wait time associated.  I believe they would have to close the first file before he/she could submit a new one.


----------



## chloeD33

Thanks for the input! Would you be able to ball park the potential time or is really just a matter of events?


----------



## Ayrsayle

Unfortunately, it would be a complete guess (I've never worked in recruiting, but perhaps someone reading this can shed some light).  From a general military administration perspective however - the more people that need to see a file before action can be taken automatically means it will take longer to process.  There are a lot of people in the chain who process these files at varying times.  It's a fairly bureaucratic system which (in my opinion) can significantly slow down the process.

Can't speak for everyone, but in my own narrow experience with the Army there is less of a focus on your particulars (gender, race, age etc) then on how good of a soldier you are.  If you use "difference" as an excuse for being a poor soldier, you tend to get marked for it.  If you are a good soldier, you'll convince a large majority that "difference" really means very little in terms of the respect you get from your peers.  Those who would have problems are likely the same kind of people who would be difficult regardless of where they were employed - but the CAF has pretty straightforward guidelines as to how to deal with racism, harassment, etc.

You will run into issues of the system (and instructors, peers, etc) not being sure how to react/interact due to a lack of knowledge and/or experience.  Most of these can be cleared up though being straightforward with your expectations to clear up confusion (for example - "I am legally classified as (X), and would be expected to be treated as (X).  I'm a recruit and expect to be treated like any other, etc).  The system DOES know how to handle recruits - and avoids singling you out for special treatment.  Might as well be as upfront with the recruiters as possible - so there is no confusion later on down the road.

As far as the in and out of how your particular transition will impact your application process, medicals, etc - I'll leave that for commentary from more qualified individuals.


----------



## chloeD33

Thanks for that! I am determined and hard working and always bust my rear off when a task is to be done. I wouldn't want special treatment because of what I am, but rather gain my respect because of who I am going to prove to be. A soilder. I just hope the opportunity will come through!


----------



## chloeD33

Like I said. I understand if I am told to wait until I had srs surgery, I would rather join sooner then later but oh well. But I am still puzzled, if you are changing but yet to have surgery do they make you have surgery first before you can join or will they let you in anyway.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

chloeD33 said:
			
		

> Like I said. I understand if I am told to wait until I had srs surgery, I would rather join sooner then later but oh well. But I am still puzzled, if you are changing but yet to have surgery do they make you have surgery first before you can join or will they let you in anyway.



You really have to take your questions to the Recruiting Centre and speak to them personally.


----------



## Jarnhamar

chloeD33 said:
			
		

> Hello everyone and thank you for reading this. This post is what it is. Basically I applied to join the Canadian Military but was still living as a male with my documents saying (and currently saying, though soon to change) I'm male. I just started to transition to living life as a woman and have started hormones. Will I still be able to join even though I haven't had any surgerys? Little re-cap, I have always  wanted to join since childhood and have been preparing in anyway I can to join, if i have to wait until after surgery I still will although I would love to join now. Any advice or wise words will be delightful and no, i don't need a lecture on my transition or someone complaining about their personal feelings about my journey, I don't care. What I do care about is serving my country (Canada) and doing what I have always wanted to do. Thank you



I'm an absolute nobody in the greater scheme of things and I'm quite tiny on the totem pole in the military but for what it's worth my suggestion is for you to wait until you're fully changed or whatever the correct terminology is.  Seriously.
If you join half way through whatever it is you're going through you WILL get special treatment and you won't be liked very much for it.
One summer I worked with a transgender person (going from Girl to Guy) and the staff didn't know what to do with them for sleeping quarters, so they got their own. Staff didn't know what washroom they could use, so every night they were driven out of the field and got to use very nice very clean showers all on their own. Guys and Girls didn't appreciate it very much.

Everyone and I mean EVERYONE wants to hurry up and join (like dropping out of high school and joining). Just wait, finish what you started and then join. I promise it'll be a 1000 times better experience for you.


----------



## chloeD33

Thanks man , those are words i will think about very much! Some have said say nothing, however living as a male against what I really want will be a huge drag and I also fear if I tell them after basic but before the trade training it would be looked down opun and make it difficult for the CF to do accommodations, as it rarely happebs and myself, I can't got back to male. I will call first thing tomorrow and let them know and see what can happen. If I can't join now rest assure you will see me one day in a few years! This is my passion. With that said thanks you all for your service too!


----------



## TCM621

There is a very simple reason the CF pays for gender reassignment. The CF is the health care provider of all regular force members and they do not have the option of the provincial health care system which would pay for their treatment. They are required to provide health care that is on par with the rest of Canada. 

It is not comparable to laser correction because you could just wear glasses. Vision correction is an elective surgery for everyone.  They will pay for retinal surgery though. 

Whether or not gender identify issues should be treated surgically  or as a mental illness is a huge, huge can of worms that really has no bearing on whether the CF pays for it or not. 

Chloe, there are 3 or 4 people who have gone through various stages of gender reassignment where I am posted. I won't lie to you and say they don't get looks or have people talk about them. However, they are probably treated better than most transgender people get civvies side.  Once people get over the shock, it is just one more person to work with and you are more concerned as to their attitude than what they have or used to have between their legs.


----------



## MercenaryBlack

Save everybody in your unit from discomfort, and don't join.


----------



## Blackadder1916

MercenaryBlack said:
			
		

> Save everybody in your unit from discomfort, and don't join.



Save everybody on this forum from realizing that there are still idiots about to join, and don't post.


----------



## AmmoTech90

MercenaryBlack said:
			
		

> Save everybody in your unit from discomfort, and don't join.



So, anyone at CFRC London want to do something about this idiot before he heads off to St Jean?  Shouldn't be hard to figure out who he is.  Going infantry and:



> Applied:  December 27, 2014
> First contact: January 26, 2015
> CFAT: March 4, 2015
> Medical: May 14, 2015
> Interview: May 14, 2015
> Position offered: May 28, 2015



He is 17 and his birthday is 19 December.  Young and dumb yes, but looks to be a bit too dumb.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MercenaryBlack said:
			
		

> Save everybody in your unit from discomfort, and don't join.








A break from posting for you for a bit while you ponder your misdeeds.
*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Loachman

MercenaryBlack said:
			
		

> Save everybody in your unit from discomfort, and don't join.



Learn from your stupidity now, or learn in a much harder way later.

Your attitude is not acceptable.


----------



## Staff Weenie

Let's put it this way - I don't care what gender a person was born with, has changed to, or currently identifies with. I don't care whom they chose to love, or how.  The colour of their skin, god they worship - not relevant to me.  I ask only one thing - will you put everything on the line to save the life of a casualty?  If the answer is 'yes', then we're going to work well together!

A dedicated soldier is a treasured resource, and we need as many as we can get.


----------



## Loachman

Callmepumpy said:
			
		

> Save everybody in your unit from discomfort, and don't join.



Ref your e-mail: I am not inclined to spend any time and effort clearing out the quotes in others' replies, so your request will achieve nothing anyway.

You've yet to issue an apology, which further lessens my already-complete lack of inclination.

I realize that you cannot post, but you could e-mail that to me to post on your behalf.


----------



## Scott

Ruh roh. Actions have consequences, Shaggy?


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

Callmepumpy said:
			
		

> Save everybody in your unit from discomfort, and don't join.



Hopefully he'll grow up and learn but if not this guy right here would be more than happy to take his place in St. Jean


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Hopefully he'll grow up and learn but if not this guy right here would be more than happy to take his place in St. Jean



OK, people have voiced their opinions. The Mods have taken action.

Let's move on.

---Staff---


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Now if you got a trans-gender visible minority, imagine all the diversity boxes you could check off.


----------



## chloeD33

Wow this really imploded. Anyway thank you to all the decent people who have given me wise advice and been a help. For the record yes I would be honored to be among the many Canadians who will fight for and if needed, die for our country. And I will do whatever it takes to make this great land better. I will get the task done whatever it may be. I also want to thank the people who have came to my defense and given me the respect I asked for, but do not feed the trolls. When posts like that appear I do to them what I do to other crazy people who take time out to rant and rave. Ignore them  :. Less stressful that way. Anyways thanks everyone


----------



## cupper

Good luck in your future and hopefully you will be given the opportunity to serve.

And hopefully the attitudes like that of this recent example will be few and far between. Particularly now with the new CDS giving the order that crap like that will stop.


----------



## chloeD33

Thanks Cupper. As said i am looking forward to this new chapter of life, all i gotta do is brush up on some stuff and i am ready for the aptitude !


----------



## buckybarnes

Hello, I was wondering if anyone with up to date information about transgender individuals in the army and the application process. I have many questions and I'm hoping any of them can be answered with respect and facts and not personal opinions. I couldn't find any information for these questions while searching both this website, google and the Canadian Forces reddit so I'd like someone with experience with the medical portion of this or anyone else with information. 
To apply must someone be already in the process of transitioning or fully transitioned to apply and if so in the case of in process (and of ftm- female to male) must they have already had top and bottom surgery to apply. If a ftm trans person were to apply already on testosterone for a year (but has not had any surgery) how would that effect everything? Would it be possible to transition after applying (while in the army)? and finally would it be better to not mention anything and just apply as the gender they were assigned at birth and then transition later on in their career?

Thank you for answering! I hope this doesn't get locked because it's a bundle of genuine questions.


----------



## Tibbson

I personally know of one transgender individual currently in the CAF.  I'm sure there are others.  After speaking with this individual I learned he was required to pass the same standard medical as everyone else which means that as long as there are no medical limitations due to what ever stage of transition he was in then he could proceed like any other applicant. More then that I can't say for sure and I don't know what the cut off point is (NO pun intended).


----------



## s2184

buckybarnes said:
			
		

> Hello, I was wondering if anyone with up to date information about transgender individuals in the army and the application process. I have many questions and I'm hoping any of them can be answered with respect and facts and not personal opinions. I couldn't find any information for these questions while searching both this website, google and the Canadian Forces reddit so I'd like someone with experience with the medical portion of this or anyone else with information.
> To apply must someone be already in the process of transitioning or fully transitioned to apply and if so in the case of in process (and of ftm- female to male) must they have already had top and bottom surgery to apply. If a ftm trans person were to apply already on testosterone for a year (but has not had any surgery) how would that effect everything? Would it be possible to transition after applying (while in the army)? and finally would it be better to not mention anything and just apply as the gender they were assigned at birth and then transition later on in their career?
> 
> Thank you for answering! I hope this doesn't get locked because it's a bundle of genuine questions.



Medical is the killer on the application process. They take transgender people, but only after the transition process is complete. If you are in the middle of transitioning, or about to transition, & if that information has been medically captured in your history anywhere, & if it pops up in the medical process, you will get an answer saying sorry. If you are already in the forces, then it is a different story, but if you are an applicant, then 'transition' part is a definite no no if you want to be successful in the recruiting process.


----------



## USF

Callmepumpy said:
			
		

> Save everybody in your unit from discomfort, and don't join.



Not to give this guy any more of the attention he craves, but to anyone who is transgendered, there was a guy in my mom's air force unit who underwent this process in the 90's when people weren't as tolerant to LGBT issues as they are today and the only "harassment" he got from his peers were guys asking why he would get his penis removed because apparently the now lady, was packing.  So you might catch some shit for it, but 99% of it will be good natured ribbing and the other 1% will get charged if you report them for harassment.  Harassment was taken very seriously when I was in from 2009-2011 and I can only imagine it's taken that much more seriously now.


----------



## chloeD33

Hey all I know this is old but its me again. I have decided to wait until the big surgery is done. It is a dream to be part of a great team like the Canadian military but I think it is best to wait it out for a couple years till SRS. I don't want to be forced to go back to drudgery by living as a male again (no matter if the time of such is not very long) and I think it will just be best to start my new career in my new life then. I want to thank all of you for your advice and comments, as a future member (hopefully) and a family history in the CF, I consider you all brothers and sisters. Take care


----------



## ShoddyGunner

Hoping some members out there might be able to provide me with a little insight.

I'm a trans person (I present as male but wasn't born as one) and don't usually make a big deal out of it. However, I know my parents both have concerns about my safety at BMQ if I get to that stage in enrolment. I'm just wondering whether there are a lot of instances or opportunities for fellow recruits to figure that out about me - are recruits ever naked around each other? I would assume probably not but don't want to make assumptions.

If the answer is yes, do you think it could be a safety concern or leave me to be 'shunned' from the platoon?

Thanks


----------



## Flatliner

Recruits are naked around each other any time you're changing for PT or showering/changing after PT. Other than that, the showers - at least in the green sector, I can't speak to the blue sector - are separated and have their own enclosed area with just enough room to dry off/change.

As far as being targeted/picked on/whatever, harassment is a huge no-no in the forces but with that being said, there are jerks out there too. Other than that, I don't have too much insight in that area to give you a great answer. People will likely find out, rumors run rampant, you know the drill.


----------



## Gunshark

I have not come across this particular situation. However, based on my own BMQ experience, I would say you will be a part of the group as much as anyone else there. We have guys and girls, short and tall, various levels of fitness, aptitude and physical fitness, and everyone is part of the team. This is something that's highly emphasized in basic training, and candidates begin to embrace this concept fairly quick.

As for being naked around others. I cannot speak for how showers are done at Reg Force BMQ in St Jean, but at my PRes BMQ we hit the showers together. There are still individual shower stalls so you can preserve your privacy. However, in the interest of saving time (as we are always in a hurry because we have to meet a timing), people give up on privacy and you see a lot of naked dudes in the change area.

Whether you choose to get naked around others or not, I would think you will neither be unsafe nor be shunned. If by chance you do experience that, you can address it with your instructors and they should address the issue quickly. There are also formal actions you can take if you come across harassment, as you will learn at BMQ.

Think positive and go for it.


----------



## ShoddyGunner

Thanks to you both! I try to see the best in people, and I hope that my actions at BMQ (if I get that far, etc.) will be seen as assets even to those who may have their personal qualms. It sounds like that'd be the case!


----------



## Jarnhamar

The minute people think you're hiding something they'll go into overdrive trying to figure out what it is. 

If you're plan is to hide it then at least be prepared for it to come out, probably at the worst time possible.


----------



## ShoddyGunner

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The minute people think you're hiding something they'll go into overdrive trying to figure out what it is.
> 
> If you're plan is to hide it then at least be prepared for it to come out, probably at the worst time possible.



I never hide things - I'm an open book. Precisely because of the reason you stated. But I'm not about to run around announcing it either - if it comes up, it comes up. I just mean that I didn't want people to think I'm someone who is looking for "special treatment" or is some kind of special cookie.


----------



## Gunshark

ShoddyGunner said:
			
		

> I just mean that I didn't want people to think I'm someone who is looking for "special treatment" or is some kind of special cookie.



No one is special at BMQ. Everyone is equally worthless. ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

If you're physically female but identify as male then, well, I have no idea. They could possibly put you in male washrooms and showers but if I know the army they will force you to receive special treatment and get you your own bathroom and shower, while everyone crams into their respective genders bathrooms, and you'll be looked down on for it by your peers.

It'll be interesting to hear how it's handled by your staff, I hope if you make it that far you post your experiences about it.


----------



## Kat Stevens

The only way people will think you're looking for special treatment or are a unique snowflake, is to act like it.  Put your head down, do the job, don't attract attention when it's not your turn to be under the all seeing eye, and you'll do fine.  Are there judgemental assholes? Definitely.  Will you meet them? Quite likely.  Don't let a likelihood hold you down.


----------



## ShoddyGunner

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If you're physically female but identify as male then, well, I have no idea. They could possibly put you in male washrooms and showers but if I know the army they will force you to receive special treatment and get you your own bathroom and shower, while everyone crams into their respective genders bathrooms, and you'll be looked down on for it by your peers.
> 
> It'll be interesting to hear how it's handled by your staff, I hope if you make it that far you post your experiences about it.



I'll for sure keep people updated if I make it that far. Ideally they'd let me just shower etc with everyone else unless there was an issue (someone started making an issue of it)...


----------



## ShoddyGunner

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The only way people will think you're looking for special treatment or are a unique snowflake, is to act like it.  Put your head down, do the job, don't attract attention when it's not your turn to be under the all seeing eye, and you'll do fine.  Are there judgemental assholes? Definitely.  Will you meet them? Quite likely.  Don't let a likelihood hold you down.



Awesome. I spent some time in cadets and that's how it usually was around new folks.


----------



## PMedMoe

Let's stop dancing around the "real" question; do you have a penis? If so, you are male, IMHO.


----------



## ShoddyGunner

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Let's stop dancing around the "real" question; do you have a penis? If so, you are male, IMHO.



Not sure we were dancing around that question. I do not, but I'm glad not everyone sees the world as you do. Also glad you do see the world as you do because our differences drive us to greatness.


----------



## ShoddyGunner

mariomike said:
			
		

> You may find this discussion of interest,
> 
> Transgender in the CF (merged)
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/79867.125
> 8 pages.
> 
> For future reference, perhaps this discussion will be merged into the mega-thread.



Thank you - I didn't see this thread come up in my search.


----------



## mariomike

ShoddyGunner said:
			
		

> Thank you - I didn't see this thread come up in my search.



You are welcome. Good luck,


----------



## PuckChaser

Why did I think I was going to beat Mariomike to posting a link to a thread already explaining this?

You're going to have issues. We don't have all-gender shower rooms like Starship Troopers, and you're pre-transition. There is a balancing act to be done on what makes you comfortable, and makes the remainder of your platoon comfortable.


----------



## ShoddyGunner

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why did I think I was going to beat Mariomike to posting a link to a thread already explaining this?
> 
> You're going to have issues. We don't have all-gender shower rooms like Starship Troopers, and you're pre-transition. There is a balancing act to be done on what makes you comfortable, and makes the remainder of your platoon comfortable.



I totally understand that. Also, I'm post-transition, which will likely make things easier but who knows!


----------



## PuckChaser

What I meant was that you have not had SRS, so without clothing you look female. Thats where the issue lies, imagine some 18 year old male having to shower in the same open room who has never seen a naked female body in person before. Awkward is an understatement.


----------



## ShoddyGunner

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What I meant was that you have not had SRS, so without clothing you look female. Thats where the issue lies, imagine some 18 year old male having to shower in the same open room who has never seen a naked female body in person before. Awkward is an understatement.



Perhaps, but from the waist up I definitely look male. And I've been in enough bathrooms and gyms to know that most men don't generally look at each others' junk. And if they do, that awkwardness is on them.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ShoddyGunner said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but from the waist up *I definitely look male.*


So that means if you're from this latest generation you have boobs and out of shape  ;D



> And I've been in enough bathrooms and gyms to know that most men don't generally look at each others' junk. And if they do, that awkwardness is on them.


Yea it's not exactly like the civilian gym.. Get ready for your peers to wait in ambush for you and throw soap dishes full of freezing cold water on to your crotch as you enter the shower. 

Or 20 man naked slip and slides across the shampoo covered shower floors (watch out for drain covers with sharp edges)

Or your section full of guys get naked and proceed to beat the shit out of each other with belts and garbage can lids.
 :sword:


----------



## ShoddyGunner

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So that means if you're from this latest generation you have boobs and out of shape  ;D



Point taken!



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yea it's not exactly like the civilian gym.. Get ready for your peers to wait in ambush for you and throw soap dishes full of freezing cold water on to your crotch as you enter the shower.
> 
> Or 20 man naked slip and slides across the shampoo covered shower floors (watch out for drain covers with sharp edges)
> 
> Or your section full of guys get naked and proceed to beat the crap out of each other with belts and garbage can lids.
> :sword:



Actually...that sounds _exactly_ like my college gym!  ;D


----------



## Leeworthy

We had group showers in Farnham I believe at the end of the field ex I recall. Trust me, no one is going to bother with you unless you let them. Bring up your concerns right away if you have any. I would think you would be housed with the women anyway and if you had all the parts they have then they aren't going to care lol.


----------



## Lumber

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> We had group showers in Farnham I believe at the end of the field ex I recall. Trust me, no one is going to bother with you unless you let them. Bring up your concerns right away if you have any. I would think you would be housed with the women anyway and if you had all the parts they have then they aren't going to care lol.



"They" might not care, but he (ShoddyGunner) might. He identifies as male, and if I take him at his word, then by outward appareances, he appears totally male and everyone would take him to be a male. In fact, unless the other females on course we're specifically explained the situation, they _would_ care that a male was being bunked with them.


----------



## Gunshark

Bottom line is, you want to be in the army, so you're going to go through with it. And you will deal with whatever circumstances come your way. There's no exact way to predict what's going to happen. Hopefully you'll be lucky to meet good people along the way. If you meet some jerks, there should still be enough good people around you to make it worth it. Just as others have said, don't hide anything, don't stand out, do your work, take care of buddy, and you should be treated the same as the next guy.


----------



## cupper

I'm confused even having reread the various posts, so perhaps ShoddyGunner could clarify.

Are you saying you are a genetic male identifying as female and have transitioned to female, or are you saying you are a genetic female identifying as male and have transitioned to male?

It's not entirely clear from what I am reading.


----------



## ShoddyGunner

The latter, Cupper, though I've finished transitioning. 

Also, all the replies on my initial post have been totally helpful and alleviated all my concerns, though I mostly made the thread so I could alleviate my family's concerns...Hopefully it will do that, too.

It sounds like it's basically what I figured - keep my head down, help my buddies, and give my course staff a heads-up and I should be good. I have no trouble dealing with jerks - they're not unique to the armed forces, but I _did_ want some kind of topographical map of what I'm getting into so I can plan accordingly.

Thanks folks!


----------



## mariomike

Good luck to you, ShoddyGunner.

Incidentally, for my own education, I was reading this. What do you think of it? Does it make sense to you?

I am posting it here in case anyone is interested,

Tips for Allies of Transgender People
http://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies

"The following are tips that can be used as you move toward becoming a better ally to transgender people. Of course, this list is not exhaustive and cannot include all the "right" things to do or say - because often there is no one "right" answer to every situation you might encounter.

When you become an ally of transgender people, your actions will help change the culture, making society a better, safer place for transgender people - and for all people (trans or not) who do not conform to gender expectations."


----------



## vonGarvin

ShoddyGunner said:
			
		

> The latter, Cupper, though I've finished transitioning.


Your surgery may be complete, but your gender hasn't changed.  I'm not a jerk, I just acknowledge the biological reality that humans, though rather advanced, cannot change their gender.

I'll go and ban my intolerant self now.


----------



## PuckChaser

Off a previous post, there was no surgery completed so waist down appears as female. That's what's confusing about the terminology, as far as I'm concerned, a transition isn't complete until SRS makes you completely appear as your identified gender. Then there should be no issues with anyone, as they wouldn't know you were ever another gender unless you told them.


----------



## Old Sweat

As an aside, one of my brother's grandkids is going through the transition. It is causing a bit of family turmoil but the individual appears to be better adjusted and is relaxed perhaps for the first time we can recall. Some of the members of family not so much.

We old folks probably can't comprehend the accepting attitude of the peers, and this should also apply at St Jean.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Your surgery may be complete, but your gender hasn't changed.  I'm not a jerk, I just acknowledge the biological reality that humans, though rather advanced, cannot change their gender.
> 
> I'll go and ban my intolerant self now.


Also stop whitesplaing and commiting Viking cultural appropriation.  ;D


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Off a previous post, there was no surgery completed so waist down appears as female. That's what's confusing about the terminology,


Yea I'm in the same boat.  I'm utterly confused.


----------



## PMedMoe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Off a previous post, there was no surgery completed so waist down appears as female. That's what's confusing about the terminology, as far as I'm concerned, a transition isn't complete until SRS makes you completely appear as your identified gender. Then there should be no issues with anyone, as they wouldn't know you were ever another gender unless you told them.



This is the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Let's stop dancing around the "real" question; do you have a penis? If so, you are male, IMHO.





			
				ShoddyGunner said:
			
		

> Not sure we were dancing around that question. I do not, but I'm glad not everyone sees the world as you do. Also glad you do see the world as you do because our differences drive us to greatness.



So, there is the bottom line.  Identifies as a male, but hasn't completed the whole change.  Male top half, female bottom half.

Not sure how that equals 'transition complete'.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Eye In The Sky]
So, there is the bottom line.  Identifies as a male, but hasn't completed the whole change.  Male top half, female bottom half.

Not sure how that equals 'transition complete'. 
[/quote]

Yea I'm not sure how that's complete either.

I can't help but find it a bit humorous in our military. In my experience the chain of command very often shits kittens if males and females share the same sleeping space. It does happen where they share sleeping quarters sometimes but other times they'll go to stupid lengths to separate males and females.  Segregated rooms, different floors of buildings, different buildings.  I've been woken up at 2am in the field because someone in the CoC freaked out when they heard males and females were sharing the same crew tents so everyone had to move around. Another time they were cramming 3 males into a crew tent and females had their own crew tents to themselves.

Now the CoC can deal with soldiers who are physically male but demand to use female sleeping quarters and showers because they decided they're women.

At least we avoided the headache of separate fitness standards with the FORCE test.


----------



## PuckChaser

Must be a combat arms thing. Never had an issue with mixed quarters in the field, but Sigs runs in smaller dets without the luxury of multiple tents at times.


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Now the CoC can deal with soldiers who are physically male but demand to use female sleeping quarters and showers because they decided they're women.



This is the part everyone is having trouble wrapping their heads around and failing to understand; and it's critical. These people didn't "decide" to be male/female. These people, with every fiber of their being, feel and believe that they are the gender that is opposite to what they are born with. 

Do you think homosexuals "decided" to be gay?


----------



## PuckChaser

Likely he did not intend to use decide in that sense. That being said, they still have a decision to make about SRS, or to live in the body they currently have. That's where the grey area is.

I'll also note the OP hasn't come back to clarify the questions asked here, despite being active elsewhere on the site.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lumber said:
			
		

> This is the part everyone is having trouble wrapping their heads around and failing to understand; and it's critical. These people didn't "decide" to be male/female. *These people, with every fiber of their being, feel and believe that they are the gender that is opposite to what they are born with. *



I'm certain some do. I'm also certain some treat it like a fad or for attention. There are examples of people deciding they are the opposite gender then deciding they aren't anymore and 'going back'. 

Is there a limit to how much we accommodate though? Can I decide I'm animal-spirited and get special accommodations because if it? That's not a stupid question either because there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there who claim to be "otherkin" ie animals, plants, fictional characters, monsters, dragons. If they believe with every fiber of their being it's true should we accept that they are a red dragon?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Fuck ya!   :blotto:   Who doesn't like dragons?


----------



## PMedMoe

Moot point...the CAF doesn't recruit animals (real or fictional)...

However, if one believed one was a horse and wanted to join the Strathconas, they'd better be able to perform as a horse...


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm certain some do. I'm also certain some treat it like a fad or for attention. There are examples of people deciding they are the opposite gender then deciding
> Is there a limit to how much we accommodate though? Can I decide I'm animal-spirited and get special accommodations because if it? That's not a stupid question either because there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there who claim to be "otherkin" ie animals, plants, fictional characters, monsters, dragons. If they believe with every fiber of their being it's true should we accept that they are a red dragon?



Absolutely there is (a limit). We've already established it. In the military, we preach and practice universality of service. Everyone has to be able to do a minimum set of tasks, and by and large we treat everone the same. We do not make accomodations for anyone.... with one exception. The only time we discriminate is with regard to gender. But even then, only in specific circumstances: dress, bunking and ablutions. This is the limit that has been set; we will accomdate your status (being a woman) in these areas, but no other. Big or tall, fat or skinny, Liberal or Conservative, Muslim or Atheist, east-asian or first nation, we expect everyone to do the same thing; but if you're female, we expect you dress differently, bathe out of sight and sleep somewhere else! 

Honestly, if we did away with this, and just had everyone sh*tting, shaving and sleeping togther, then it wouldn't matter if you were transgender, bigender, androgynous or dragonkin!


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm certain some do. I'm also certain some treat it like a fad or for attention. There are examples of people deciding they are the opposite gender then deciding they aren't anymore and 'going back'.



Just because some might abuse the system, doesn't mean we should abandon the system and those that rely on it.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm certain some do. I'm also certain some treat it like a fad or for attention. There are examples of people deciding they are the opposite gender then deciding they aren't anymore and 'going back'.
> 
> Is there a limit to how much we accommodate though? Can I decide I'm animal-spirited and get special accommodations because if it? That's not a stupid question either because there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there who claim to be "otherkin" ie animals, plants, fictional characters, monsters, dragons. If they believe with every fiber of their being it's true should we accept that they are a red dragon?



Horseshit!  Your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with a legitimate debate about transgendered persons and the CF.  If there are individuals out there who so vehemently insist that they are something other than the species "Homo sapiens" that they want to be accommodated in their belief, the likelihood that they would be enrolled is slim;  the CF only enrols human beings (them being the only species currently acceptable - all else is property).  Likewise for individuals already serving.  The reason - because they are batshit crazy and, if legitimate in their assertion, should be evaluated for medical fitness to serve.  If their proclamation to be "otherkin" is simply "attention seeking" then there are avenues to deal with the conduct of individuals who become an administrative burden due to their inability to adjust to service life.  This is nothing new.  There have always been serving soldiers, sailors and the other ones who had odd personal behaviour beliefs and quirks, but as long as it didn't interfere with routine, it can be overlooked.

As to the limits of accommodation, what do current CF directions say?  This is not a new phenomenon, so there must be some guidance already published.  It would be interesting to see what (if anything) came from previous human rights tribunal recommendations that the CF develop specific policy guidelines about how they would accommodate transgendered persons.  As those of us no longer serving do not have access to a full range of DND's policy documents, I was only able to find the titles of two documents that may hold some of the answers.

CANFORGEN 031/12 - Management of CF Transsexual Members (mentioned in an issue of The Maple Leaf)

CF Military Personnel Instruction 01/11 (mentioned on this DND page about Internal Review of Workplace Policies, Programs and Leadership Engagement)

I haven't been able to find the text of these documents open-source on the net.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Honestly, if we did away with this, and just had everyone sh*tting, shaving and sleeping togther, then it wouldn't matter if you were transgender, bigender, androgynous or dragonkin!
> 
> 
> 
> What happens when a CAF member argues that being forced to share bathroom accommodations with members of the opposite sex impinges on their religious beliefs? Do you think they can successfully argue that gender based bathrooms are a reasonable accommodation?
> Truly I don't care the army ruined me of any modesty I had  ;D  It's only a matter of time before someone makes my silly dragon kin argument a real one.
> 
> 
> 
> Blackadder1916 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit!  Your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with a legitimate debate about transgendered persons and the CF.  If there are individuals out there who so vehemently insist that they are something other than the species "Homo sapiens" that they want to be accommodated in their belief, the likelihood that they would be enrolled is slim;  the CF only enrols human beings (them being the only species currently acceptable - all else is property).  Likewise for individuals already serving.  The reason - because they are batshit crazy and, if legitimate in their assertion, should be evaluated for medical fitness to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it really bat shit crazy?  Why? Lots of people think someone who is physically male but identifies as female (and demands to be accommodated as such) is crazy and yet we're seeing examples of it happening.
> Bruce's prison example. The Alberta schools from the story I posted.
> 
> The CAF is a reflection of society and there are people out there who have two (or 3) genders and believe they're fairies or unicorns.
> You think it's crazy now but in 10 or 15 years it could be common place. My argument is all theory and devils advocate but so was openly gay or trans members being allowed to serve 30 years ago.
> 
> 
> If I were to actually have an issue at present it's individuals getting special accommodations to shower privately, use the washroom facilities on their own (ie other members not allowed in) or private/special sleeping areas etc..  And I've seen that first hand.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What happens when a CAF member argues that being forced to share bathroom accommodations with members of the opposite sex impinges on their religious beliefs? Do you think they can successfully argue that gender based bathrooms are a reasonable accommodation?
> Truly I don't care the army ruined me of any modesty I had  ;D  It's only a matter of time before someone makes my silly dragon kin argument a real one.
> Is it really bat crap crazy?



As an Atheist, I would say damn their religious sensibilities. The human body is the most natural thing that is human, and it shouldn't be something to be ashamed or afraid of. Modesty is a social construct that are not wanted nor required when serving your country. (maybe modesty isn't the right word, but I can't find a better one for "thinks opposite sexes seeing each other naked/sleeping in same rooms as the opposite sex/going to the bathroom in the same room as the opposite sex is shameful")

Do I think they can successfully argue for gender based bathrooms as areasonable accomodation. At the moment, I think yes, but I think things are changing. We had a co-ed bathroom on my last ship. The female officers were tired of having to walk all the way to the female Chief's heads, and the female officers heads were broken, so they said screw it. The bathrooms are individual stalls, and there is no urinal anymore, so why can't a female and a male play battleshits? They even started having showers in our heads. The only caveat was that only men or only women (not both) could be in the shower area of our heads at one time. But you could have a female officer showering while males were shaving or going to the bathroom 6 feet away. Could I see this happening at NDHQ? Not a chance, but, I've never been... Maybe the MEGA?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lumber said:
			
		

> As an Atheist, I would say damn their religious sensibilities.


Damn their religious sensibilities   ;D   That wouldn't have flew with the conservatives at the helm. Now that the liberals are in power?  Those religious sensibilities just got a whole lot more important.


----------



## cupper

Lumber said:
			
		

> As an Atheist, I would say damn their religious sensibilities.



See, now you've done it. You've brought religion into the equation.

As an atheist I'd start demanding my own facilities so I didn't have to listen to someone invoking a deity when they are puking, or having conjugal self-relations.  [


----------



## AirDet

I usually avoid topics like this that can so easily go off the rails. However, I just wanted to point out that as military we judge people more by their actions than any other single trait. If someone conducts themselves professionally, they'll be treated thusly.

For example, I've sailed with a trans-gendered tech and a gay tech. They were both highly skilled and competent. We lived in very close quarters with them for up to 6 months at a time. Nobody on our det ever passed a negative statement about either of them.

The bottom line is that when we're in this uniform we're ALL the same. We're all part of the team.

I can't guarantee there won't be discrimination but we have processes in place to deal with those. With all the focus of Op Honour I hope that the few dinosaurs that remain would be wise enough to grow up or at least keep their opinion silent.


----------



## OldSolduer

AirDet said:
			
		

> I usually avoid topics like this that can so easily go off the rails. However, I just wanted to point out that as military we judge people more by their actions than any other single trait. If someone conducts themselves professionally, they'll be treated thusly.
> 
> For example, I've sailed with a trans-gendered tech and a gay tech. They were both highly skilled and competent. We lived in very close quarters with them for up to 6 months at a time. Nobody on our det ever passed a negative statement about either of them.
> 
> The bottom line is that when we're in this uniform we're ALL the same. We're all part of the team.
> 
> I can't guarantee there won't be discrimination but we have processes in place to deal with those. With all the focus of Op Honour I hope that the few dinosaurs that remain would be wise enough to grow up or at least keep their opinion silent.



Good post. FYI I have a family member who has trans gendered. That takes guts...and more courage than many of us could muster.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

AirDet said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that when we're in this uniform we're ALL the same. We're all part of the team.



In a perfect world and in recruiting videos, that might be true.

However, I am NOT the same as the POS in uniform who chose to do drugs, partake in kiddie porn, beat their dependants, steal and abuse their authority.  Uniform or not, we are all NOT the same, the uniform is likely the one thing we all have in common. 

Let's stop pretending the world is all about puppy dogs and butterflies.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In a perfect world and in recruiting videos, that might be true.
> 
> However, I am NOT the same as the POS in uniform who chose to do drugs, partake in kiddie porn, beat their dependants, steal and abuse their authority.  Uniform or not, we are all NOT the same, the uniform is likely the one thing we all have in common.
> 
> Let's stop pretending the world is all about puppy dogs and butterflies.



AH!  I see you fell for all that "Diversity Training" that came out after "SHARP Training".  You know the one.  Where they whole unit got to watch a video on "X's" and "Y's" and how everyone is different.  Training to show how we were all different.  It only takes the tiniest bit of common sense to know that we are all different.  However, that training was "divisive" as opposed to what we in the military needed -- "inclusive".  What we all have in common is more important.  We all know that the "world is not all puppy dogs and butterflies".  The CAF is about teamwork, not individualism.  

Does the CAF have "problem children"?  Like every other segment of Canadian society; yes.  Is that the question being discussed in this thread?  No.


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> AH!  I see you fell for all that "Diversity Training" that came out after "SHARP Training".  You know the one.  Where they whole unit got to watch a video on "X's" and "Y's" and how everyone is different.  Training to show how we were all different.  It only takes the tiniest bit of common sense to know that we are all different.  However, that training was "divisive" as opposed to what we in the military needed -- "inclusive".  What we all have in common is more important.  We all know that the "world is not all puppy dogs and butterflies".  The CAF is about teamwork, not individualism.
> 
> Does the CAF have "problem children"?  Like every other segment of Canadian society; yes.  Is that the question being discussed in this thread?  No.



As an organization we're still very much driven by gender distinctions.

Speaking of the question George(or anyone really) , what do you think? Should a Canadian Forces member who is physically male but identifies their gender as female be allowed;

1. to use female washrooms,open showers and sleeping quarters?
2. be given the bra allowance? 
3. wear female DEUs?
4. hypothetically speaking- be allowed to fall under female standards of fitness if we ever move back to gender based fitness scores?


----------



## Poppa

I think that if the individual in question has been diagnosed with gender identity disorder (GID) or gender dysphoria and are in the process of transitioning then yes they should be treated as their identified gender.
Just seems like the right thing to do....to me.


----------



## George Wallace

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> As an organization we're still very much driven by gender distinctions.
> 
> Speaking of the question George(or anyone really) , what do you think? Should a Canadian Forces member who is physically male but identifies their gender as female be allowed;
> 
> 1. to use female washrooms,open showers and sleeping quarters?
> 2. be given the bra allowance?
> 3. wear female DEUs?
> 4. hypothetically speaking- be allowed to fall under female standards of fitness if we ever move back to gender based fitness scores?



It isn't a question at all.  There are actually a large number of CAF personnel who fall into this category, and they already have points 1, 2 and 3.  Point 4 would follow suit if it were to be applied.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> As an organization we're still very much driven by gender distinctions.
> 
> Speaking of the question George(or anyone really) , what do you think? Should a Canadian Forces member who is physically male but identifies their gender as female be allowed;
> 
> 1. to use female washrooms,open showers and sleeping quarters?
> 2. be given the bra allowance?
> 3. wear female DEUs?
> 4. hypothetically speaking- be allowed to fall under female standards of fitness if we ever move back to gender based fitness scores?



And to add to it, what about the other females on the course/exercise/in the unit/whatever.  What if one or more of them are uncomfortable with a male (biologically) who identifies as female?  What are their rights?  None?  Some?

It isn't just about the transgender person.  We are supposed to care about the welfare of all our subordinates.


----------



## PMedMoe

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It isn't a question at all.  There are actually a large number of CAF personnel who fall into this category, and they already have points 1, 2 and 3.  Point 4 would follow suit if it were to be applied.



But I believe those people have undergone _complete_ SRS and were closely monitored while doing so.

I have no problem with trans or gay people, having friends in both categories.

I think the question (in this thread anyway) is where does the CF put people who identify as a certain gender, yet are not "equipped" as that gender? 

I think there'd be problems either way.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> AH!  I see you fell for all that "Diversity Training" that came out after "SHARP Training".  You know the one.  Where they whole unit got to watch a video on "X's" and "Y's" and how everyone is different.  Training to show how we were all different.  It only takes the tiniest bit of common sense to know that we are all different.  However, that training was "divisive" as opposed to what we in the military needed -- "inclusive".  What we all have in common is more important.  We all know that the "world is not all puppy dogs and butterflies".  The CAF is about teamwork, not individualism.
> 
> Does the CAF have "problem children"?  Like every other segment of Canadian society; yes.  Is that the question being discussed in this thread?  No.



Actually, as a PRES mbr at the time, and having done SHARP, I refused to do the "Diversity Trg" when it was run at the unit.  I was tired of the PC mamby-pamby BS being stuffed down our throats at the time.

What is being discussed in this thread is an issue based on people.  Someone said 'we are all the same'.  I used examples to show that is not, in fact, true.


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It isn't a question at all.  There are actually a large number of CAF personnel who fall into this category, and they already have points 1, 2 and 3.  Point 4 would follow suit if it were to be applied.



I could be wrong but I have my doubts that CF members who have a penis are openly showering with females or sleeping in female designated sleeping quarters?

PMedMoe that's exactly what I'm asking (thanks).  When I was reading about Bruce/Caitlin Jenner I was surprised to read that they still had a penis despite the other extensive surgeries they went through. I went on to read that it was very common for trans members not to fully transition hence my questions about accommodations and such.


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I went on to read that it was very common for trans members not to fully transition hence my questions about accommodations and such.



Which begs the question, if someone truly and fully believes they are the opposite gender inside their current body, why not make the complete transition? Then they can fully and completely live life as the other gender, and no one would even know.


----------



## PMedMoe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which begs the question, if someone truly and fully believes they are the opposite gender inside their current body, why not make the complete transition? Then they can fully and completely live life as the other gender, and no one would even know.



Exactly.


----------



## NSDreamer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which begs the question, if someone truly and fully believes they are the opposite gender inside their current body, why not make the complete transition? Then they can fully and completely live life as the other gender, and no one would even know.



 I'm sure many of them want to. The process, from my understanding, is not fast, and takes a wait period to prove that this is what they want and not a fluke diagnosis or something along those lines, if you want I can look it up for you, but when a friend of mine back in university was applying for it they had to wait a lengthy period of time while on hormone therapy before a doctor would consider the operation.


----------



## mariomike

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> The process, from my understanding, is not fast, and takes a wait period to prove that this is what they want and not a fluke diagnosis or something along those lines, if you want I can look it up for you, but when a friend of mine back in university was applying for it they had to wait a lengthy period of time while on hormone therapy before a doctor would consider the operation.



Adding for reference,

Sex reassignment surgery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery


----------



## The Bread Guy

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I think the question (in this thread anyway) is where does the CF put people who identify as a certain gender, yet are not "equipped" as that gender?


Simple, but not easy - well summed up.


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which begs the question, if someone truly and fully believes they are the opposite gender inside their current body, why not make the complete transition? Then they can fully and completely live life as the other gender, and no one would even know.


Another good question, but as with any policy/rule, dealing with the 0% or 100% is easy - it's the 40 to 75%'ers that are tricky.


----------



## ModlrMike

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which begs the question, if someone truly and fully believes they are the opposite gender inside their current body, why not make the complete transition? Then they can fully and completely live life as the other gender, and no one would even know.



Because the CF doesn't fund SRS anymore?


----------



## PuckChaser

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Because the CF doesn't fund SRS anymore?



I'm not talking specifically about serving members, more the general populace.


----------



## Gunshark

If ShoddyGunner could return to clarify the questions asked in this thread, it would be helpful to everyone here trying to understand. We don't want to go down the ignorant path.


----------



## PMedMoe

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Because the CF doesn't fund SRS anymore?



AFAIK, they do but on a case by case basis. Things may have changed in the last few years though...

IIRC, people are put on SPHL and closely monitored by medical pers thoughout the process.


----------



## macniven

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which begs the question, if someone truly and fully believes they are the opposite gender inside their current body, why not make the complete transition? Then they can fully and completely live life as the other gender, and no one would even know.



Each surgery can be quite expensive. Top surgery for a ftm(female-to-male) is a little under 10 thousand. Bottom surgery(which is multiples surgeries) can be anywhere from 20 thousand up. Then there are hotel fees if you have to go to a different city, time off work, recovery, etc.

Also, for some, having a penis isn't a necessity in what makes them feel like a man. Of course that's not the case for all, but it definitely the case for some.

For others, they might want bottom surgery, but may feel that the medical world is not advanced enough yet to create a natural looking penis.

It varies for many as to why they wouldn't complete every surgery. Bottom line, it's not an easy feat.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Macmar that's what I found too when I've read up on it. Money is always a major factor but someone like Bruce Jenner who has undergone extensive cosmetic surgery, will probably never get a physical sex change because they just don't want to. 

Some people  (like me) think if someone wants to be identified as female then they should get the surgery. Other people believe they can decide for themselves how to define male and female.


----------



## PuckChaser

Its also covered under OHIP, and although there are long waits (which are being worked on), the individual is only paying for incidentals. Seems like something all these LBGTQ etc alliances could be helping people out with the cost of.


----------



## CountDC

AirDet said:
			
		

> I can't guarantee there won't be discrimination but we have processes in place to deal with those. With all the focus of Op Honour I hope that the few dinosaurs that remain would be wise enough to grow up or *at least keep their opinion silent*.
> 
> Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.



Couldn't resist.


----------



## PuckChaser

CountDC said:
			
		

> Couldn't resist.



I don't think anyone here is asking anything that's discrimatory or could be construed as harassment. What people are looking for, is information to help better understand people who have to go through a very tough process.


----------



## mariomike

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What people are looking for, is information to help better understand people who have to go through a very tough process.



I found this informative,

Tips for Allies of Transgender People
http://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies

"The following are tips that can be used as you move toward becoming a better ally to transgender people."


----------



## Jarnhamar

Relevant to the discussion.

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/man-undresses-in-front-of-girls-in-seattle-locker-room-cites-gender-identity-regulation/


> A young man undressed twice last week in front of young girls in the women’s locker room at Seattle’s Evan’s Pool facility and police were not called due to confusion over Washington State’s new Gender Identity regulations. The rules allow any male to enter women and girl’s locker rooms, showers, restrooms, saunas, etc. by invoking his belief in “Gender Identity”, a psychological form of reproductive sex unrelated to actual biological sex. Males who enter such facilities without proclaiming a personal belief in psychological sex are subject to arrest under sex crime statutes.
> 
> The man in question twice reportedly entered the female changing facility and observed the women and girls in various stages of undress, and removed his own clothes in front of them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

That can't happen in Utopia, can it??


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Relevant to the discussion.


"A young man undressed twice last week in front of young girls in the women’s locker room at Seattle’s Evan’s Pool facility and police were not called due to confusion over Washington State’s new Gender Identity regulations." 

Maybe this is too? 

Transgender employment, 

"...she is New York City's first and only transgender firefighter. The FDNY employs more than 10,400, only 44 of whom are women, and Guinan is the only member who has served the department as both a man and a woman."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/new-yorks-bravest-is-trans-fdny-firefighter-brooke-guinan-6722705


----------



## Nudibranch

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, there is the bottom line.  Identifies as a male, but hasn't completed the whole change.  Male top half, female bottom half.
> 
> Not sure how that equals 'transition complete'.



Bottom surgery MtF generally gets ok results. FtM, much less so. 
Apart from the cost, metoidioplasty aesthetically can give a less than satisfactory result (you can look up pictures on several medical surgery sites that show their results - and those would be what the clinics posting consider their successes), and phalloplasty has issues with complications, graft area scars and tactile sensation. It's not unusual for a FtM TG individual to finish transition without bottom surgery for those reasons, not for financial ones.


----------



## Andraste

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, there is the bottom line.  Identifies as a male, but hasn't completed the whole change.  Male top half, female bottom half.
> 
> Not sure how that equals 'transition complete'.



Hello,

This is my first post on this site and I believe I can speak with some expertise on the subject as I am a serving trans woman.  Now I don't normally call myself a trans woman as I consider myself a woman because that is my gender.  I have an "F" not a "M" on my military ID, provincial driver license and passport (green and blue).  I live my life as a woman having transitioned over a year ago. I dress as a woman, style my hair as a woman, wear make-up (_a necessary evil given my ugly mug  _).  However, here is the rub, I have not sought nor will I ever seek any altering surgeries or hormone replacement therapy (HRT).  Specifically, my transition is complete in the sense I have come as far as I require to be a woman.  There is no checklist or specific requirements dictated by others to be considered the gender you identify. Legally I am a woman but physiologically and genetically I am a man . . . confused yet?

Most who have responded to this post are confusing concepts of binary gender description which makes you male or female so long as you have checkmarks in all the right boxes on the list.  That is not the case.  Perhaps some basic definitions might help clarify:

Transgender: Is an umbrella term for all who experience some form of gender dysphoria. This covers your classic cross dresser who just likes to dress up in various articles of the target gender from time to time to those who have a need to align themselves with the target gender and, all points in between (e.g., gender fluid, gender questioning, etc.)

Transsexual: Is a person who knows they were born as the wrong gender and seeks to align themselves (in whatever way they see fit) to live as the target gender.  I am a transsexual in that I was born male but I view myself as woman. This has nothing to do with what is between my legs and everything to do with a sense of self.  

Genetic sex: This is predetermined by your chromosomes in which you are either "xy" (male) or "xx" (female).  Yes there are variations such as "xxy" "xxx" but, for simplicity I went with the most common. I am genetically male in that no science to date can change that.  However, while my genetics are predetermined at conception, that does not mean my gender identity is also fixed and cannot vary.

Physiological sex: This is linked to genetic sex in that your chromosomes and hormones (testosterone and estrogen) will determine what form your body takes on.  If you are born genetically male, testosterone is the predominant sex hormone and you will develop male primary and secondary sexual characteristics.  Your body mass will tend to be larger, you facial features will be more masculine and fat to muscle content will be more masculine.  Yes, some men can appear more feminine (slighter build) but they are still male.

Transsexuals can suffer various levels of dyshoria when it comes to their physiological appearance and can take various avenues to correct that.  For example gender reassignment surgery (GRS), breast augmentation/removal, hormone replacement therapy, female facial feminization surgery (male to female).  However, this is not a requirement for transition as each has their own level of dysphoria and will seek various avenues to attain a comfort level.  In my own case, I am happy with my body as it is.  Yes, I am genetically and physiologically male but that is all superficial and I have no need to alter my body via surgery or hormones.  Fortunately, I have a slighter frame than your average male and my features are finer but, "_the kid isn't pretty but she accepts that_" [.  My dysphoria is body and facial hair (thanks Northern European ancestors)  so I have taken steps to have my beard and body hair lasered from my body.  

You also need to account that the surgeries you are talking about are very invasive (_Google GRS and you will find detailed description with video should you doubt my voracity  _) and depending on the person's health and age can be quite dangerous. HRT is nothing to be messed with either as swapping your hormones can do damage to your body again depending on age.  So some trans folks may not be able to seek GRS, FFS, BA or HRT due to health issues, personal choice or financial requirements.  While GRS is covered under most Provincial health care - the remaining surgeries can run in the tens of thousands.  I personally am in several thousand just for hair removal (not covered by the military or the health care system).  So what many term "full transition" here, is sometimes not desired or not possible (medically or financially).  

Gender Identity: The last two concepts were all about appearances (i.e., how the person appears to the world) and while dysphoria may require a trans person to correct various aspects of their physiology it is "gender identity" which drives this.  This is how the person perceives themselves.  I was born male but identify as a woman . . . why is that?  I wish I could tell you.  Again this has nothing to do with what is between my legs and everything to do with how I see myself.  I don't look in the mirror and see a guy, I see a woman.  No, not physiologically . . . but still a woman.  Gender identity tends to manifest itself quite early but there are generational effects.  I knew I was not quite wired like the other boys when I was five but that decades ago in small town Canada and we did not speak of such things so I socialized boy, suppressed, joined the military (combat arms, SOFCOM and now support) to live an uber-masculine life and prove I was all guy.  Still I knew there was something wrong and when things went very dark (and I mean dark) three years ago after decades of denial/suppression, I realized I had to transition or cease to exist . . . that is how bad it can get folks.  So I transitioned so I can align my sense of self with my gender identity (woman) and have never looked back.  My body does not define who I am only how people see me (trans) . . . my sense of self defines who I am (woman). 

Now the million dollar question . . . where do I go pee and shower?  Well for my daily business I use the women's restroom because folks . . . I am just answering nature's call and that is done in the privacy of a stall.  Showering is a different thing as I am cognizant that I am physiologically male and that would make folks uncomfortable (myself included). Surprisingly, men were more upset about me using the male change rooms . . . go figure.  However an accord was reached and sometimes that is what it takes, education, compromise and logic.  

A few myths I want to put to rest:

(1) Being trans is not a mental illness.  It used to be referred to as Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and was in the DSM IV but has since been removed by mental health professionals.  Yes, if you come out as trans in the military you will need to go see the medical folks and mental health services.  This is to ensure you get a consult with a therapist who specializes in "gender identity issues" to work with you and bring order to what is chaos on a grand scale and is used to assign a TCAT should you decided HRT and surgery is your avenue. Yes, trans folks tend to have higher rates of suicide and depression but it is not caused directly by being trans but second order effects.  Imagine being someone you are not for most of your adult life, hiding in the shadows because people think who you are is wrong, perverted, weird, then finally accepting that in yourself, coming out only to potentially loose family, friends, livelihood . . . that will take it's toll on anyone.  I reached a very dark point myself, got the help I needed and glad to report I am "five by five" these days.  That is not the same realty for many trans folks though.  

(2) Gender identity and sexual orientation is not always linked: Just because someone identifies as the other gender does not mean their sexual orientation is also different.  Folks, I am married to wonderful woman who supports me and has gone through this transition with me.  Specifically, I still like the ladies and always will . . . my gender identity did not change that.

(3) Being trans in the CAF will get you special privileges not given to non-trans folks.  NOT TRUE!  I have received no special privileges and must adhere to all the same regulations as any other CAF member.  What I expect as a CAF member (trans or not) is to be treated with decency and dignity and not be harassed, made fun of, looked down upon or the butt of jokes.

A bit wordy I know but I figured this could provide a trans 101 for those who were confused.  Happy to elaborate if you like.  [

Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens

Andraste said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> This is my first post on this site and I believe I can speak with some expertise on the subject as I am a serving trans woman.  Now I don't normally call myself a trans woman as I refer to consider myself a woman because that is my gender.  I have an "F" not a "M" on my military ID, provincial driver license and passport (green and blue).  I live my life as a woman having transitioned over a year ago.  However, here is the rub, I have not sought nor will I ever any altering surgeries or hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Legally I am a woman but physiologically and genetically I am a man . . . confused yet? Specifically, my transition is complete in the sense I have come as far as I require to be a woman.  There is not checklist or specific requirements dictated by others to be considered the gender you identify./
> 
> SNIPPED FOR SPACE ONLY, NOT CONTENT
> 
> /A bit wordy I know but I figured this could provide a trans 101 for those who were confused.  Happy to elaborate if you like.  [
> 
> Cheers



First of all, awesome, informative post, without allowing emotion and personal feelings to muddy the facts, kudos. Speaking only for my own time in uniform, as outdated as that is, I never cared one iota where anyone wanted to take a dump, that particular moment is between you and whatever God you pray to to get you through it.  As for shower time, if anyone of any "other" alignment than my own felt the need to be checking me out, first of all thanks, I'm flattered, and secondly they set the bar pretty low, standards wise.  For myself, the only problem(s) I have are with the ability for some to game the system, and that others are potentially put to unreasonable inconvenience to accommodate a very small, so far, minority.  I remember when women first started showing up in my unit. On exercise in Wainwright we had integrated shack, which meant in those days crappy old quonset H huts.  Every night, an hour long block was set aside in the communal showers for the two women in a building that housed 120+ pers. 12 shower heads out of commission for one hour every night doesn't sound like much, but it sure was for the other 118 people in the place.  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, except in the CAF".  I strayed off the track here a bit, but thank you again for the informative post.


----------



## GAP

Andraste said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> This is my first post on this site and I believe I can speak with some expertise on the subject as I am a serving trans woman.  Now I don't normally call myself a trans woman as I refer to consider myself a woman because that is my gender.  I have an "F" not a "M" on my military ID, provincial driver license and passport (green and blue).  I live my life as a woman having transitioned over a year ago.  However, here is the rub, I have not sought nor will I ever any altering surgeries or hormone replacement therapy (HRT).  Specifically, my transition is complete in the sense I have come as far as I require to be a woman.  There is not checklist or specific requirements dictated by others to be considered the gender you identify. Legally I am a woman but physiologically and genetically I am a man . . . confused yet?


  Snipped.....

I agree,  awesome, informative post. Thank you


----------



## The Bread Guy

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> First of all, awesome, informative post, without allowing emotion and personal feelings to muddy the facts, kudos.


What he said - thanks for sharing information about a pretty personal topic.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Andraste said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> This is my first post on this site and I believe I can speak with some expertise on the subject as I am a serving trans woman.  Now I don't normally call myself a trans woman as I consider myself a woman because that is my gender.  I have an "F" not a "M" on my military ID, provincial driver license and passport (green and blue).  I live my life as a woman having transitioned over a year ago. I dress as a woman, style my hair as a woman, wear make-up (_a necessary evil given my ugly mug  _).  However, here is the rub, I have not sought nor will I ever seek any altering surgeries or hormone replacement therapy (HRT).  Specifically, my transition is complete in the sense I have come as far as I require to be a woman.



Hi Andraste ,

Thanks for taking the time to post all of that. It's pretty informative. It would be great to hear more from transgender CF members, hopefully posts like yours will move them to post and contribute.

Do you mind me bouncing some trans and gender related questions off you? Specifically about fitness?
In another thread we're discussing the new new force test and going back to a gender and age based point system.
[ http://army.ca/forums/threads/114687/post-1430489/topicseen.html#new ]

Correct me if I am wrong but I'm guessing you check F in the gender box on the test.  The CAF one again holds women to a lower fitness standard than men. We're also discussing whether PER points should be added as an incentive to keep fit.
Presuming you checked off F in the FORCE test, do you as someone born male but transitioned to womanhood feel that it is fair that you would be competing for PER points and promotions against other women who were physically born woman?


----------



## ModlrMike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The CAF one again holds women to a lower fitness standard than men.



Clearly you missed the part where everyone has to do the same tasks to the same standard.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Clearly you missed the part where everyone has to do the same tasks to the same standard.



Sorry that was shitty wording on my part.  What I mean is females are given a lower physical threshold for competitive scoring on the DFIT.ca scale.


----------



## Andraste

Hi Jarnhamar,

No problems with answering any questions about being trans.  

In my own personal circumstances, even thought I am legally considered female, I have not sought HRT and as such my physiology is male.  If I had sought HRT, the first step is androgen (testosterone) blockers which has the net effect of reducing muscle mass and strenght (among other physiologically changes).  It is testosterone which gives men their strength and muscle mass.  Once testosterone levels drop to within normal range for women (yes women have levels of testosterone in their bodies), estrogen is then introduced into the mix (this is sometimes done simultaneously) which then redistributes body weight in a more feminine way (think to the hips and bust area).  As naturally occurring estrogen level increase to within normal range of a woman (yes, men have estrogen in their bodies . . . we all start out female at conception BTW), strength then drops to become more in line with the strength and muscle mass of a woman.

As I still have male androgen levels particular to my age, I would be expected to attain the standard for a male of my age bracket.  As such, I would not be gaining an advantage (PER wise) over genetic women of my age bracket.  Had I chosen HRT my strength would be akin to a woman of my age bracket so we would be on equal footing when it came to fitness testing and subsequent PER points.

Hope this answers your question.

Cheers


----------



## Pieman

> Legally I am a woman but physiologically and genetically I am a man . . . confused yet?



...Kinda, yes  I don't mean this question as anything disrespectful, I'm just curious. I'm wondering how one can identify themselves as a women, being physically a man, is still attracted to a woman? It seems to defeat the purpose Do you think the hormonal treatments would effect your attraction levels towards males? Does it in other trans who go through the process? 

I also have to wonder that since sexuality is dominantly meant for procreation, so what is the evolutionary benefit for those who are along a spectrum of that? (I don't expect anyone here would know that either) 

I'm reminded of a sci-fi writer Ian M. Banks, who proposed that humans in the future would change genders and body types at will in various stages of life. Getting bored? Become a female for a while, then switch back. Or become both. Society in the future is going to be all kind of confusing if this comes about.


----------



## PuckChaser

There is no evolutionary benefit, its a net loss. That's why some believe it is either an evolutionary abnormality in the genes that creates transgender/homosexual individuals, or a product of unknown socio-economic factors as a child.

It would be a very interesting study, but socially suicide to suggest figuring out why humans have evolved/learned to go against the natural urge to procreate.


----------



## Pieman

> There is no evolutionary benefit, its a net loss. That's why some believe it is either an evolutionary abnormality in the genes that creates transgender/homosexual individuals, or a product of unknown socio-economic factors as a child.



It has been shown that homosexuality in a certain species of monkeys acts as a social way to de-stress their tribe and create bonds. Basically a way to keep them from turning on each other in hard times. That would account for homosexuality being a evolutionary advantage in certain situations. 

However, I don't think that is the same as say a male monkey identifying itself as a different sex. It doesn't seem to fit anywhere when you look at it from this point of view.


----------



## Andraste

Pieman said:
			
		

> ...Kinda, yes  I don't mean this question as anything disrespectful, I'm just curious. I'm wondering how one can identify themselves as a women, being physically a man, is still attracted to a woman? It seems to defeat the purpose Do you think the hormonal treatments would effect your attraction levels towards males? Does it in other trans who go through the process?



Hello,

No disrespect taken.  This is standard misconception that gender identity is the same as sexual orientation.  Specifically, if you are a trans-woman (a man who lives as a woman) then you must like men.  The two are not linked on any level.  Yes, it is plausible that a trans-woman may have liked men before transitions or had been bi-sexual and would go on to express interest in men following transition. However, if the trans-woman liked women prior to transition (as in my case), no amount of hormone replacement therapy is going to make her like men following transition.  I have a friend who transitioned male to female and went the whole distance (surgery and HRT), she still likes women and still married to her wife.  

There is no theory about why people are transgender as a theory implies a body of researched evidence to support the position.  There is however a working hypothesis (not proven in science . . . yet) which may explain.  So buckle in an follow along  :

When we are conceived in the womb, our sex is determined at the DNA level.  You are either XY (male) or XX (female). However, we all develop female up to the eighth week of gestation when the hormone wash triggers primary and secondary sex characteristics.  In males a biochemical know as TDT supresses the naturally occurring estrogen (inherited from your mother's X gene) and turns on your testosterone (inherited from your father's Y gene).  This causes changes to the body structure at the biochemical level and sends you down the road to manhood.  This biochemical wash also causes changes to your developing brain in that certain structures are more affected in males than females (and vice versa for estrogen on female developing fetuses).  Here is where the hypothesis kicks in.  It is biochemically possible that the TDT does not turn on in the eighth week but may straggle along until the ninth.  This allows for the naturally occurring estrogen to affect brain development more akin (not exactly) to a female wired brain.  Then along comes TDT which then locks the body into male development . . . end result . . . girl brain in a boy body.  Now it is not that simplified and as I stated it is only a hypothesis so take it for what is worth.  

My point being that for some reason, I may have a man's body (determined by genetics) but I don't identify as a man as I know in my core, I was meant to be a woman.  I hope this provides some clarity . . . if not, let me know and I will try to explain a bit more as I am all about educating.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There is no evolutionary benefit, its a net loss. That's why some believe it is either an evolutionary abnormality in the genes that creates transgender/homosexual individuals, or a product of unknown socio-economic factors as a child.



Hello,

I do take task with this line of research and reasoning . . . I do not see myself as "abnormal or providing a net loss to society".  If that was not the intent of your statement then I apologize for getting terse but I get this crap handed to me on a daily basis. The literature you are citing is old evolutionary theorists "clap trap" touted as a means to posit that transgender folk are abnormal and against nature which feeds nicely into transphobic fears.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thanks for the thoughtful response to my question Andraste. I agree with you 100%, transwomen who haven't undergone surgery should be treated as male in so far as fitness and incentives go.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

She does have a point.....

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-36085314


----------



## brihard

And Andraste killed it. That's one of the most succinct and informative posts I've seen on any subject on this board in quite some time. Nicely done!


----------



## Pieman

> No disrespect taken.  This is standard misconception that gender identity is the same as sexual orientation.....



Thank you for your post. You certainly know your stuff! I have to admit I am going to have to think through the idea some more. 

The biological theory for the biochemical reaction at the 8 week mark is certainly interesting. If true, there may be a possible intervention during the 8 week mark to ensure that the proper amount of TDT shows up when it is supposed to potentially eliminating the chance for a girl-brain in a boy-body. All done with my magical sci-fi medical imagination, but it's hard to say it's impossible to do if there is a physical cause/effect. Acceptance of others is great! Perhaps we could also be focusing on prevention, if it was possible? Just a thought.


----------



## AbdullahD

Pieman said:
			
		

> Thank you for your post. You certainly know your stuff! I have to admit I am going to have to think through the idea some more.
> 
> The biological theory for the biochemical reaction at the 8 week mark is certainly interesting. If true, there may be a possible intervention during the 8 week mark to ensure that the proper amount of TDT shows up when it is supposed to potentially eliminating the chance for a girl-brain in a boy-body. All done with my magical sci-fi medical imagination, but it's hard to say it's impossible to do if there is a physical cause/effect. Acceptance of others is great! Perhaps we could also be focusing on prevention, if it was possible? Just a thought.



But is prevention a cure? Is this a disease that needs to be prevented?

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading, this thread. but... i have to take bones with this just a little.

How do we know that by doing this, we would be doing the right thing? Is it not up to mankind to get past these social and cultural stigmas that make the way a person is wired a bad thing?

The vast majority of people are going to be straight and either male or female, but I find some beauty in deviance. We have the technology and it is getting better to give people the option to change, IF they want to. But what if some people would be happy living as X in a Y body? what right do we have to remove that option? shouldnt we just remove our prejudices....

I know this has been covered.... but i wanted to reiterate. 

Abdullah 

p.s after posting i realized they could just do the change  themselves... but still i think my post stands.


----------



## Pieman

> How do we know that by doing this, we would be doing the right thing? Is it not up to mankind to get past these social and cultural stigmas that make the way a person is wired a bad thing?



I see your point. Let's suppose we were able to intervene and prevent it from happening. I believe that as a parent I would want to give the child the best shot possible. I can't imagine the complications and emotional distress (socially accepted or not) presents to a person going through such an identity crisis. Life is tough enough.  So in all honesty, I would employ that intervention without hesitation. I personally don't buy into accepting 'fate' when you actually have the ability to control something. 



> The vast majority of people are going to be straight and either male or female, but I find some beauty in deviance. We have the technology and it is getting better to give people the option to change, IF they want to. But what if some people would be happy living as X in a Y body? what right do we have to remove that option? shouldnt we just remove our prejudices....



I think you are correct on some levels in that diversity within a population is a good thing. However,  certain attributes are going to represent some very serious disadvantages and challenges that would otherwise not be there. So, I think if it is an option then it really is the responsible thing to give someone the best chance for success as possible....right now it's not actually an option, so social acceptance is the best approach for sure.


----------



## Pusser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks for the thoughtful response to my question Andraste. I agree with you 100%, transwomen who haven't undergone surgery should be treated as male in so far as fitness and incentives go.



However, will they be?  Is there a "transgender" box on the form to tick?  If a transgender person identifies themselves on the form as female (which the system says they should) and their pers file says they're female (which it legally does), how then can their results be recorded as anything, but those of a woman, notwithstanding that they used a male body to achieve them?  In other words, I don't think our fitness evaluation system has evolved to the point of being able to score transgender personnel according to their physiology, when most other personnel records say something different.

I don't think it's a huge problem.  I don't think that having the very few number of transgender personnel in the CF possibly getting a slightly higher or lower PER score based on their FORCE results is of great concern.  Will FORCE results really differentiate between who gets promoted and who doesn't in the greater scheme of things?

Having said all of this, I am actually fundamentally opposed to higher PER points for the FORCE test, but that's a subject for another discussion.


----------



## Lumber

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> She does have a point.....
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-36085314



She doesn't have a point at all, because she clearly doesn't understand the argument.

When someone puts on a pirate outfit, they are only _pretending_ to be a pirate. When a Barry Humphries dresses up as Dame Edna, he is only _pretending_ to be a woman.

The fact is, though, that these people are NOT just pretending. They are people who are undergoing a real, observable (anecdotally, albeit) dysphoria.

The woman in the article seems to think that all transgendered people are just cross-dressers, who believe that the "clothes makes the man," as it were.  Her argument is moot because she doesn't understand the issue at all.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

According to studies [quick google before I posted that] around 20% of men cross dress........now I couldn't find a number for those who self-identify as women, but I'd be shocked if it were more then a few percent.    Therefore, to quote you...............'pretending"......


----------



## Lumber

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> According to studies [quick google before I posted that] around 20% of men cross dress........now I couldn't find a number for those who self-identify as women, but I'd be shocked if it were more then a few percent.    Therefore, to quote you...............'pretending"......



My point is that the people who want to be able to use the woman's bathroom (or vice-versa) are those that genuinely self-identify as a woman (and vice versa), not men, who think they are men (and vice versa) but are simply wearing woman's clothing. 

What is women's clothing anyways? I see lots of women wearing jeans and t-shirts, it doesn't make them men.


----------



## Jarnhamar

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> How do we know that by doing this, we would be doing the right thing? Is it not up to mankind to *get past these social and cultural stigmas *that make the way a person is wired a bad thing?



Like a parent taking issue with their child choosing a different religion or no religion at all right?



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> However, will they be?  Is there a "transgender" box on the form to tick?  If a transgender person identifies themselves on the form as female (which the system says they should) and their pers file says they're female (which it legally does), how then can their results be recorded as anything, but those of a woman, notwithstanding that they used a male body to achieve them?  In other words, I don't think our fitness evaluation system has evolved to the point of being able to score transgender personnel according to their physiology, when most other personnel records say something different.
> 
> I don't think it's a huge problem.  I don't think that having the very few number of transgender personnel in the CF possibly getting a slightly higher or lower PER score based on their FORCE results is of great concern.  Will FORCE results really differentiate between who gets promoted and who doesn't in the greater scheme of things?
> 
> Having said all of this, I am actually fundamentally opposed to higher PER points for the FORCE test, but that's a subject for another discussion.



I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
The CAF clearly believes men are more physically capable then women. I think the minute a members fitness becomes a PER/promotion/money in their pocket issue the CAF will need to address transgender members and the male/female fitness scale discrepancies.


			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> The fact is, though, that *these people are NOT just pretending*. They are people who are undergoing a real, observable (anecdotally, albeit) dysphoria.


I partially disagree. While some legitimately have their wires crossed (for lack of a better term, not trying to insult) and can't help but feel that way we have to accept that _some _just choose to or just want to.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Lumber said:
			
		

> My point is that the people who want to be able to use the woman's bathroom (or vice-versa) are those that genuinely self-identify as a woman (and vice versa), .



You sure don't know a lot of the men I've spent the last 27 years working with...........which of course if you're not in this field is a good thing.  
This whole thing is akin to an open invitation at a donut factory for Homer Simpson.


----------



## Lumber

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You sure don't know a lot of the men I've spent the last 27 years working with...........which of course if you're not in this field is a good thing.
> This whole thing is akin to an open invitation at a donut factory for Homer Simpson.



No snarkiness, just honest questions:

1. I'm not sure which field you're referring to, could you please elaborate?

2. And do you mean to imply that, with these knew regulations, a significant number of men are going to start wearing women's clothing just so they can claim that they identify as women, all with the goal of being able to go into the women's bathrooms?


----------



## AbdullahD

Pieman said:
			
		

> I see your point. Let's suppose we were able to intervene and prevent it from happening. I believe that as a parent I would want to give the child the best shot possible. I can't imagine the complications and emotional distress (socially accepted or not) presents to a person going through such an identity crisis. Life is tough enough.  So in all honesty, I would employ that intervention without hesitation. I personally don't buy into accepting 'fate' when you actually have the ability to control something.
> 
> I think you are correct on some levels in that diversity within a population is a good thing. However,  certain attributes are going to represent some very serious disadvantages and challenges that would otherwise not be there. So, I think if it is an option then it really is the responsible thing to give someone the best chance for success as possible....right now it's not actually an option, so social acceptance is the best approach for sure.



I agree to an extent. To be honest, If I knew my child would have this issue and I could correct it..I probably would. Guess I am a hypocrite.

Now back to the point, lets say we both do it and hundred or thousands of other do it as well. That doesnt mean this issue dissappears, it would most likely be listed as an elective process/surgery and as always some parents would elect not to do it. Thus in reality giving the children a double disadvantage if the current culture doesnt change, being;
1-Have the wiring of A in a B body and
2-The stigma of having parents who didnt "correct" this issue.

Now I am not a fate-ist or whatever they are called, I do believe that people should do everything in their power to enhance or increase their comfort and happiness in life. But some things just happen. In an ideal world, no one would ostracize a person for how they were born. Reality though is a tough thing sometimes as the rates of suicide and depression show in the trans community amongst others, it is hard to cope.

And who are we to decide what would make a person happy, I am as a straight heterosexual non trans male deciding what a "xyz" person would be happy with? Wasn't it just a few short years ago the fight for homosexuality was being fought? Wasn't the cliche position that all the homosexual people would be happy as a straight person and this was just a phase? We as a society and a culture have been evolving past this and instead of thinking Transgender people need to be cured or fixed, before they express a desire to do so we should try to accept them. Because lets face it, maybe some people are happier living as X in a Y body (albeit most evidence shows the opposite).

So we do have the medical technology to halfways correct the issue in this day and age, and by god we have the brains so lets fight for social acceptance and when this other technology becomes available we can revisit this talk. I am not saying this is the right choice, I am just arguing for it. If anything see this position of mine as an arguement for all minorities to get sufficient social and emotional support so that the depression and suicide rates go to 0.

Life is tough, agreed. But lets develop proper thought processes so our kids can cope with emotional trauma. We all face trials in life, we cant protect our kids from all of them... sorry I maybe lost the point lol

A meandering
Abdullah

p.s Jarnhammer I saw your post and feel I have adequately addressed it in the other thread regarding people who leave Islam. Furthermore I dont wish to derail this thread, so thats why I didnt respond.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Lumber said:
			
		

> No snarkiness, just honest questions:
> 
> 1. I'm not sure which field you're referring to, could you please elaborate?
> 
> 2. And do you mean to imply that, with these knew regulations, a significant number of men are going to start wearing women's clothing just so they can claim that they identify as women, all with the goal of being able to go into the women's bathrooms?



1. Corrections. [ and a majority of the last 10 years with SO's]
2.YES!


----------



## GR66

I think that some/much of the confusion/concern/debate comes from the de-linking of "Gender Identity" and "Sexual Orientation" as identified by Andraste.

Most of the male/female differentiations in our society are based solely on the physical gender of the individual.  Do you have male parts or female parts?  Sexual Orientation does not factor in to this.  Homosexual males and females do not identify as the opposite gender on their ID.  Lesbians do not have separate bathrooms from Hetro-women.  

As a result I think that _most _people don't have a huge issue with the "traditional" (?) transsexual scenario.  A male/female identifies as a female/male, is sexually attracted to the same sex and transitions to the opposite sex (accepting that there may be a wide spectrum of transition...from merely dressing as the opposite sex all the way to full gender re-assignment surgery depending on their situation and choices).

I think many more people are confused/concerned when you have someone whos "Gender Identity" does NOT match their "Sexual Orientation".  The proverbial "Lesbian trapped in a man's body".  I'd imagine that in cases where such an individual opts for a physical transformation (wherever along the spectrum) to live as a member of the opposite sex then there would be a bit more acceptance than for someone who chooses to live as their "physical" gender.

It raises some very interesting questions about what "Gender" really is.  If a genetic male lives as a male and has no desire to live as a female and has the sexual orientation traditionally viewed as "male", then when he self-identifies as being female is it actually the case that they are being viewed by society as the incorrect gender (since they feel they are actually female), or are they possibly really saying that the way they "think" (for lack of a better term) or act is much more closely aligned with what our culture traditionally identifies as "female" thinking/behaviour than it is with what our culture traditionally defines as "male" thinking/behaviour?


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=AbdullahD]

p.s Jarnhammer I saw your post and feel I have adequately addressed it in the other thread regarding people who leave Islam. Furthermore I dont wish to derail this thread, so thats why I didnt respond.
[/quote]

No worries Abdullah! I wasn't trying to make a jab but rather reaffirm how silly that notion is today (and agree with the context you put it here).



Andraste  I have an off the wall question I'd like to get your opinion on.  What do you think of "animal-kin"? Do you think they're are doing it for attention or do you think they genuinely believe they're half-animal? (or half whatever)  Do you think they should be given any sort of special considerations because of their beliefs?


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Andraste  I have an off the wall question I'd like to get your opinion on.  What do you think of "animal-kin"? Do you think they're are doing it for attention or do you think they genuinely believe they're half-animal? (or half whatever)  Do you think they should be given any sort of special considerations because of their beliefs?



That was discussed back around Reply #214.

The consensus seemed to be, 1) "Moot point...the CAF doesn't recruit animals (real or fictional)...".

2 ) "Horseshit!  Your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with a legitimate debate about transgendered persons and the CF.  If there are individuals out there who so vehemently insist that they are something other than the species "Homo sapiens" that they want to be accommodated in their belief, the likelihood that they would be enrolled is slim;  the CF only enrols human beings (them being the only species currently acceptable - all else is property)."


----------



## ballz

mariomike said:
			
		

> That was discussed back around Reply #214.
> 
> The consensus seemed to be, 1) "Moot point...the CAF doesn't recruit animals (real or fictional)...".
> 
> 2 ) "Horseshit!  Your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with a legitimate debate about transgendered persons and the CF.  If there are individuals out there who so vehemently insist that they are something other than the species "Homo sapiens" that they want to be accommodated in their belief, the likelihood that they would be enrolled is slim;  the CF only enrols human beings (them being the only species currently acceptable - all else is property)."



I, for one, would still be interested in hearing Andraste's answer. It's a tangent for sure, but given her unique vantage point from which most of us cannot see from and excellent articulation, she may just blow us away with another enlightening post.


----------



## mariomike

ballz said:
			
		

> I, for one, would still be interested in hearing Andraste's answer. It's a tangent for sure, but given her unique vantage point from which most of us cannot see from and excellent articulation, she may just blow us away with another enlightening post.



I even find Andraste's posts on administration enlightening.


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> That was discussed back around Reply #214.
> 
> The consensus seemed to be, 1) "Moot point...the CAF doesn't recruit animals (real or fictional)...".
> 
> 2 ) "Horseshit!  Your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with a legitimate debate about transgendered persons and the CF.  If there are individuals out there who so vehemently insist that they are something other than the species "Homo sapiens" that they want to be accommodated in their belief, the likelihood that they would be enrolled is slim;  the CF only enrols human beings (them being the only species currently acceptable - all else is property)."


  

The CAF used to send NIS to investigate members who they suspected were homosexuals. Our investigative police used to sift through peoples garbage looking for used condoms, spank mags or whatever. If back then you would have said the CAF would champion gender neutral bathrooms in order to accommodate males/females who identified as females/males (whether they have the parts or not) I'm sure many would call "horse shit" too.

It's easy to pass off my question as a non-issue or something that will never happen but we can't be sure of that can we? There ARE people in our society who identify as that stuff.  There are people who identify as having both genders at the same time (who could be a straight female, gay male), no gender, tri-gender.   When you do a bit of reading there seems to be dozens of variations of all this gender-identity stuff.   Since the CAF reflects society this could be something we deal with in the future.

I'm asking because from what I'm understanding of this we're to accept that Andraste was born physically a male but her brain says woman. Why shouldn't we accept what an animal-kins brain is telling them? 



> .the CAF doesn't recruit animals


I could have sworn I heard someone at work saying the dogs they used had ranks (and in this case the dog  outranked him). I'll get clarification  ;D


----------



## Andraste

Wow . . . leave a thread for a few days on TD and it explodes in all sorts of directions.  I will do my best to respond to all but will need a bit of time as I have some pressing matters at work to deal with. So as some will understand . . . wait out.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## mariomike

Andraste said:
			
		

> I will do my best to respond to all but will need a bit of time as I have some pressing matters at work to deal with.


----------



## Lumber

This is your best post yet...


----------



## vonGarvin

Ok. Enough.
Dude, you are not female in spite of your beliefs and surgery. 
You did not gain 5 years life expectancy. 
Your DNA did not change.
Your pheremones did not change.
Your risk of prostate cancer didn't go away (unless maybe they removed it, I guess)
Ovarian cancer isn't a risk. 
You had surgery and probably hormonal treatment. And yes, if you have sex with men, you are also homosexual. 

That you choose to live your life accirding to the social norms associated with women is none of my business. That you call yourself female is delusional and mocks the very nature of human beings everywhere, and suggests that you assert that the differences between men and women is merely superficial.
A woman in the US "identified" as black and was roundly mocked. You and she are equally delusional, but it doesn't prevent either of you from living a life with which you identify.  She can have black friends, use black vernacular,  listen to black music and even watch black movies (whatever any of that stuff really means), and thats ok. 
But she's not black. 
And you're not a woman.


----------



## GAP

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Ok. Enough.
> ~~~~~~~
> And you're not a woman.



That about sums it up...... :goodpost:


----------



## Andraste

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Ok. Enough . . . And you're not a woman.





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> That about sums it up...... :goodpost:



Well, I am assuming this is meant for me. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion (both of you) I guess I am entitled to mine.

You both make a mockery of decent human beings and if you are in the military perhaps you should read the military ethos and take it to heart because you definitely don't belong in the CAF.  Respect to all folks, dignity and whatnot . . . interesting concepts so learn them.  Perhaps some day when you exceed the emotional level of a 5 year old you will be ready for polite company.

Good luck with your sad view on life and if you are in the CAF and should you see me the proper respect paid will be "Ma'am"  [

Regards

Andraste


----------



## Lumber

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That you call yourself female is delusional and mocks the very nature of human beings everywhere, and suggests that you assert that the differences between men and women is merely superficial.



Actually, she's done nothing of the sort, she's asserted the exact opposite; that the difference between men and women is engrained in our very sense of being. The fact that she has _not_ decided to undergo gender reassignment surgery further demonstrates that she does not assert a connection between outward "superficial" appearance and the inward idea of self.

You clearly don't buy into the idea that sex and gender are two different aspects that don't always go hand in hand. That's fine, to each his own, I suppose. I'll just leave these here:

"Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to _*their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones*_"
- Gunter Heylens, MD, Department of Sexology and Gender Problems, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent 9000, Belgium.

"In some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender..."
- Prince, Virginia. 2005. "Sex vs. Gender." International Journal of Transgenderism. 8(4).


----------



## Andraste

Pieman said:
			
		

> Thank you for your post. You certainly know your stuff! I have to admit I am going to have to think through the idea some more.
> 
> The biological theory for the biochemical reaction at the 8 week mark is certainly interesting. If true, there may be a possible intervention during the 8 week mark to ensure that the proper amount of TDT shows up when it is supposed to potentially eliminating the chance for a girl-brain in a boy-body. All done with my magical sci-fi medical imagination, but it's hard to say it's impossible to do if there is a physical cause/effect. Acceptance of others is great! Perhaps we could also be focusing on prevention, if it was possible? Just a thought.



Hi all,

Well since I have dealt with the peanut gallery above I can focus on the actual questions vice nonsensical rants.   I read through the posts last night and decided rather than use a very long post to respond; I will take each theme in turn and respond as there were a few different tangents.

Pieman I want to start by saying I am not hacking on your post as you bring up a valid point for discussion so please don't take it the wrong way.  [

Firstly I just want to confirm that my post about a plausible reason why transgender people are the way they are, is just a hypothesis.  Specifically there is no body of research to support the hypothesis because the science does not exist to confirm so it is all just conjecture.  In addition while it may be a plausible explanation, it does not take into account that several extraneous variables (biologically and socially) can feed into it.  So it is highly unlikely that any one thing creates a transgender person.  

However, in keeping with the theme of “_if you could prevent someone from being transgender, would you?_”  Well, I can say from a personal point of view I would not wish this on my worst enemy.  It is emotionally draining, socially exasperating and you gain nothing from it.  I would love to wake up in the morning and go about my business on a daily basis and not have to worry if some d-bag is going to take exception to me and start following me around the mall calling me “_tranny-fag_” (happened folks).  Or have four stellar examples of human cowards sucker punch me in a parking lot then proceed to kick me senseless (three broken ribs, several nice bruises, and a sprained back)  because one of their girlfriends saw me use the women’s bathroom.

Having said that, I am who I am and I accept that because the good people in the world, those who empathize and see the person, not some weirdo . . . outnumber the d-bags.  The guy who followed me around the mall was ejected by mall security when several people complained about his rude behavior.  The four guys who tooled me up, were stopped by three men who happened to be passing by.   I did not ask for this but I accept it in me.  Folks self-acceptance is the hardest road to travel when you are trans because I hated myself so bad I got to a very dark place.  So I live with it and relish each day I can be who I was meant to be.

When people give me a hard time for being trans (happens now and then), I always say to them “_Got it, I am a transwoman.  So how does that affect you personally_? _How does me being out in the world somehow make your life more difficult?"_  For the most part I get “crickets” from these folks and from others I get references to religion or my kind should be eliminated because we are perverse . . . that is my life folks and it is not fun. But again … how does my existence change the axil rotation of the earth? Short answer . . . it doesn't.

Now I understand why you might want to “prevent/cure/whatever” this in your children so they have a leg up sort to speak.  So let’s say the science exists to do so.  If the science exists to change that then it would also exist to change other things which would give your kids a leg up in life.  So why not make your children tall, good looking, athletic, slim, smart, great teeth or whatever.  After all short, squat, overweight, flabby, unfit, average intelligent people . . . well who needs these pimply faced kids . . . my boy or girl is going to be a superstar and reap all the benefits.  The one thing about this scenario is if the technology/science exists someone is going to make money on it and who will benefit . . . the rich.  So your average person might not be able to afford turning their son into Brad Pitt or daughter into Angelina Jolie but the rich will.  So not to get all “Gattica” here, you will eventually have a genetically modified super race and a disenfranchised serving class.  Not a world I want to live in folks.  What you are talking about is Eugenics and that can never go well. 

We (trans folk) don’t need curing (and I am not saying that is what is being implied in the post but a general statement).  We need understanding, acceptance and the ability to just be seen as who we are . . . people who have the right to be treated with the same decency you expect you would expect.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Andraste

Andraste said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> Well since I have dealt with the peanut gallery above I can focus on the actual questions vice nonsensical rants.



Lumber . . . I was not referring to your post above as it came in just before I posted.  I was referring to the other two folks above you.  

Andraste


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Andraste said:
			
		

> Well, I am assuming this is meant for me. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion (both of you) I guess I am entitled to mine.
> 
> You both make a mockery of decent human beings and if you are in the military perhaps you should read the military ethos and take it to heart because you definitely don't belong in the CAF.  . . . interesting concepts so learn them.  Perhaps some day when you exceed the emotional level of a 5 year old you will be ready for polite company.
> 
> Good luck with your sad view on life and if you are in the CAF and should you see me the proper respect paid will be "Ma'am"  [
> 
> RegardsRespect to all folks, dignity and whatnot
> 
> Andraste



You know, your posts were informative and balanced on a relatively new and perhaps sensitive subj for people in the CAF.

But, with this post, I am sorry to say but you just lost your credibility.  Military ethos doesn't state that serving mbr's are not allowed to have and express their opinions.  Was the post blunt?  Sure.  Does that make it 'wrong'?  Not by a long shot.

Your response?  Digression to name calling, elementary school playground junk.  And why?  Because someone doesn't agree with YOUR point of view on a subj that you are 101% biased on for personal reasons.  It's horseshit.  And IF you are of a rank and position in the CAF to be called Ma'am, you should be above the level of thinking you demonstrated in that one post.  

Is your post the 'CAF example" of the very same military ethos you wrote?    

No one likes a hypocrite, people who don't agree with YOUR biased stance on this issue aren't "whatever politically correct term is the flavour of the day".  What are they doing?  Enjoying the rights and freedoms afforded to ALL Canadian citizens, even the ones who don't agree with your thoughts.

If you are a ma'am, you are _supposed _to be capable of critical thinking and respectful discourse/discussion/debate on any subj.  Looks like a big 'fail' on that one at this point.  Well, unless people don't question your biased opinion.



			
				Andraste said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> Well since I have dealt with the peanut gallery above I can focus on the actual questions vice nonsensical rants.   I read through the posts last night and decided rather than use a very long post to respond; I will take each theme in turn and respond as there were a few different tangents.
> 
> Andraste



More proof you need to re-read my post above.  If you are going to dish it out on here, you better be able to take it as well.  My  :2c: is you are far too thin-skinned to be able to take it, so I'd gear back a bit on the arrogance and "if you don't agree with me you are a *insert label here*.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You know, your posts were informative and balanced on a relatively new and perhaps sensitive subj for people in the CAF.
> 
> But, with this post, I am sorry to say but you just lost your credibility.  Military ethos doesn't state that serving mbr's are not allowed to have and express their opinions.  Was the post blunt?  Sure.  Does that make it 'wrong'?  Not by a long shot.
> 
> Your response?  Digression to name calling, elementary school playground junk.  And why?  Because someone doesn't agree with YOUR point of view on a subj that you are 101% biased on for personal reasons.  It's horseshit.



Well said, I was going to say the very same thing.




> Well, I am assuming this is meant for me. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion (both of you) I guess I am entitled to mine.
> 
> You both make a mockery of decent human beings and if you are in the military perhaps you should read the military ethos and take it to heart because you definitely don't belong in the CAF.  Respect to all folks, dignity and whatnot . . . interesting concepts so learn them.  Perhaps some day when you exceed the emotional level of a 5 year old you will be ready for polite company.
> 
> Good luck with your sad view on life and if you are in the CAF and should you see me the proper respect paid will be "Ma'am"  [
> 
> Regards
> 
> Andraste


Lots of people in the CAF will find a man living as a woman weird, who cares. That doesn't mean they won't be professional about it, defending their issues and concerns or supporting their leadership.


----------



## armyvern

Some with no hesitancy to call Andraste out, but nary the others.  Too funny and says a lot because, you know, one can still disagree with someone else and still be _*RESPECTFUL*_ about it and that was Andraste's point.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Some with no hesitancy to call Andraste out, but nary the others.  Too funny and says a lot.



Examples?


----------



## armyvern

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Examples?



One can disagree with someone and still be RESPECTFUL about it.  No one pointed out that bit about leadership and disagreeing respectfully until Andraste made her post (and, that call could have been made before hers). Funny that.


----------



## mariomike

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> One can disagree with someone and still be RESPECTFUL about it.



Surprised this discussion has lasted 13 pages without a lock,

Dress rules established for transsexuals in military
http://army.ca/forums/threads/97978.50.html
LOCKED after 3 pages.

From: Hey look, another one
http://army.ca/forums/threads/82008.0/nowap.html
"If it wasn't from a MOD locking that dragqueen thread you would still be there fighting for transsexual rights."
LOCKED after 8 pages.

a few questions 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/35796.0
"I'm also a pre op mtf transsexual"
LOCKED


----------



## Andraste

Eye in the sky,

Sorry I lost credibility in your eyes but you launched as if I just made an off handed comment.  It was in reply to a post directed at me in which I am insulted.  Was I suppose to sit back and take it?  Is there a reason why the individual below can call me delusional and that is okay but when I return and call the person out . . .  all of sudden that get's your goat.

On top of that you get verbally rude in your own post on a subject I am certain you are 110 percent biased against.  So before you cast dispersions . . . try turning that "eye in sky" to all posters. 



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Ok. Enough.
> Dude, you are not female in spite of your beliefs and surgery.
> You did not gain 5 years life expectancy.
> Your DNA did not change.
> Your pheremones did not change.
> Your risk of prostate cancer didn't go away (unless maybe they removed it, I guess)
> Ovarian cancer isn't a risk.
> You had surgery and probably hormonal treatment. And yes, if you have sex with men, you are also homosexual.
> 
> That you choose to live your life accirding to the social norms associated with women is none of my business. *That you call yourself female is delusional and mocks the very nature of human beings everywhere, and suggests that you assert that the differences between men and women is merely superficial.
> *A woman in the US "identified" as black and was roundly mocked. *You and she are equally delusional*, but it doesn't prevent either of you from living a life with which you identify.  She can have black friends, use black vernacular,  listen to black music and even watch black movies (whatever any of that stuff really means), and thats ok.
> But she's not black.
> And you're not a woman.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Folks, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That said, posters can still be cognizant that not everyone shares that opinion. Rudeness is ill defined, as is delusional, etc. It is only in the eye of the beholder to judge that, while not imposing their own bias on the situation. Delusional/ rude/ whatever, is again, just the opinion of the person and does not constitute an insult, which in itself, is just an opinion. You're supposed to be adults. Now, move along. The kiddie playground is closed.

---Staff---


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Andraste 

You may have been insulted, and I wouldn't blame you for it a bit, but overlook his tone, and try and refute the assertions.............now most of us would say it in a much nicer way but IMO, he is right.

I think I'm the hottest man who ever lived,................I have never felt 'insulted" by any of the thousands of women who thought otherwise and turned me down flat.
Thinking something does not make it reality.


----------



## Andraste

Alcon . . . Ack and got it.  

I apologize if my tone came off as rude and condescending in response to what I saw as a personal insult from another followed by another harshly worded e-mail.  I live this daily . . . insults, attacks (verbal mostly / physical sometimes) so it does get very real for me and sometimes I can get emotionally charged and fail to think before writing.  

Again I apologize for potentially derailing the thread and will now move along.

Regards and best of luck   

Andraste


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

No need to move along.........sometimes folks [me included] can write heavy-handed posts, but we pride ourselves on being an intelligent website full of passionate, but proper, interaction and discussion.


----------



## mariomike

Andraste said:
			
		

> Again I apologize for potentially derailing the thread and will now move along.



Andraste, I found your posts interesting and informative. Judging by your Milpoints history, so did others. I counted eleven positive comments, and only one negative.  

Should you decide to step away from this thread, I hope you will continue to help others in the administration discussions.


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> Andraste, I found your posts interesting and informative.



I did too. Transgender issues are something any leader in the CAF may have to deal with and given the state of despair some of the soldiers and officers we`re seeing coming into the CAF we need as many fighters as we can get.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I did too. Transgender issues are something any leader in the CAF may have to deal with and given the state of despair some of the soldiers and officers we`re seeing coming into the CAF we need as many fighters as we can get.



I guess you never know about some people until put to the test?

"A decorated war hero and avowed heterosexual, he fought in World War II wearing bra and panties under his uniform."
"Wood later claimed that he feared being wounded in battle more than he feared being killed because he wore a bra and panties under his uniform."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/edwoodrhowe_a019bd.htm



But, it was something RadarGrrl said earlier in the thread that got my attention, "Trans people have one of the highest suicide rates in the world."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Andraste said:
			
		

> Eye in the sky,
> 
> Sorry I lost credibility in your eyes but you launched as if I just made an off handed comment.  It was in reply to a post directed at me in which I am insulted.  Was I suppose to sit back and take it?  Is there a reason why the individual below can call me delusional and that is okay but when I return and call the person out . . .  all of sudden that get's your goat.
> 
> On top of that you get verbally rude in your own post on a subject I am certain you are 110 percent biased against.  So before you cast dispersions . . . try turning that "eye in sky" to all posters.



I read it, thanks.  That post gives someone's opinion on the subj transgender men and if they are actually women.  

- That person didn't refer to your worth as a human being, or if you are suitable for employment on the CAF.  Is there a difference because of that?  To me, yes.  

- I was DIRECT; that is different from being RUDE.  

- You've no idea anything about me at this point, but feel free to go on labelling me as "110% biased" or whatever.  But, let's make it clear, I've not stated an opinion on the thread subj like TV has.  What is it I am 110% biased on?   

- I have no real, defined opinion because there is lots I do not know about the whole subj.  I didn't post a reply to your early words at all, I found them very informative and well written.  It was educational, and those are the types of messages people like me are receptive to (older, more deeply entrenched opinions, etc).  

- I've been called out on here before, in open and via PMs, for saying things others were bothered by.  In 2 days, I could say something that crosses a line and I'll expect to be called on it.

- Let's keep the thread moving on, you've given people the insider perspective on the subj, and I for one will say its the only 'BTDT' perspective I've ever been exposed to on the subj.

 :2c:


----------



## ballz

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Andraste
> 
> You may have been insulted, and I wouldn't blame you for it a bit, but overlook his tone, and try and refute the assertions.............



Why would she? If he would have read Andraste's posts he probably would have realized she has already said that her DNA and physiological make-up is male.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think I'm the hottest man who ever lived,................I have never felt 'insulted" by any of the thousands of women who thought otherwise and turned me down flat.
> 
> Thinking something does not make it reality.



So I just wikipedia's "reality" and here is an interesting blurb....

"Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is false, what is fictional, or what is abstract. At the same time, what is abstract plays a role both in everyday life and in academic research. For instance, causality, virtue, life and distributive justice are abstract concepts that can be difficult to define, but they are only rarely equated with pure delusions. Both the existence and reality of abstractions are in dispute: one extreme position regards them as mere words; another position regards them as higher truths than less abstract concepts. This disagreement is the basis of the philosophical problem of universals."

Biology is reality, for sure. Gender is abstract. Here we are, debating about the existence and reality of the abstract.

I would say calling someone delusional for believing in the concept of "gender" is about as fair as calling them delusional for thinking things like virtue and justice exist. Virtue and justice are both also abstract. Their reality can be disputed.

At the end of the day, since this whole dispute is about bathrooms.... I'm happy I can fall back to my trustworthy principle of "if it doesn't harm you or anyone else, it's none of your damn business." If a woman wants to use their penis to pee in a urinal or in a cleaner, better smelling, pink bathroom, I don't care, and what is more concerning to me is why anyone else would.


----------



## RogueSig

Hi everyone. I'm glad to see this thread is still active. It's taken me a few days of off and on reading to catch up.

Andraste, what kind of administrative/medical process did you go through to get to where you are now? Also, do you have any advice for someone just starting out on this kind of a path?


----------



## Andraste

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Ok. Enough.
> Dude, you are not female in spite of your beliefs and surgery.
> You did not gain 5 years life expectancy.
> Your DNA did not change.
> Your pheremones did not change.
> Your risk of prostate cancer didn't go away (unless maybe they removed it, I guess)
> Ovarian cancer isn't a risk.
> You had surgery and probably hormonal treatment. And yes, if you have sex with men, you are also homosexual.
> 
> That you choose to live your life accirding to the social norms associated with women is none of my business. That you call yourself female is delusional and mocks the very nature of human beings everywhere, and suggests that you assert that the differences between men and women is merely superficial.
> A woman in the US "identified" as black and was roundly mocked. You and she are equally delusional, but it doesn't prevent either of you from living a life with which you identify.  She can have black friends, use black vernacular,  listen to black music and even watch black movies (whatever any of that stuff really means), and thats ok.
> But she's not black.
> And you're not a woman.



TKV and GAP (sorry I could not link your post for some reason),

Yesterday I responded to your posts in a very callous, immature and unprofessional manner.  In essence I did exactly what I accused you of doing.  I will fall on my sword and personally apologize to both of you and anyone who read my rant and was put off.  I can offer no explanation short of I am human and sometimes as humans we lash out uncontrollably when things get emotionally heated.  I saw your post as a personal attack (not a point of view) and should have just employed shoot, scan and breathe vice full on counter offensive.  It is not much to offer but there it is.  Again my apologies.  

Now I will respond in the calm and logical manner I should have yesterday.

TKV . . . I never contended I was genetically or physiologically female.  Indeed if you do a deep dive on my earlier posts, I make a distinction between physical sex (what you term as the superficial) and gender identity (in essence our beliefs in who we are . . . what makes you, you).  I was born XY (male) and will die XY (male) and no amount of surgical intervention, hormone replacement will ever change that so on that point we agree.  I also stated, I am not seeking gender reassignment surgery or hormone replacement because what is between my legs and other aspects of my male physiology does not define me as a person any more than it defines you.   In addition I feel you may be confusing societal constructs of gender, girls act one way and boys another as a defining characteristic of male/female.  We all know there are plenty Alpha pack women out there and not so Alpha pack males.  Some men cook, sew and are stay at home dads and some women hunt, spit on the ground and swear like a trucker (no offence to truckers  ).  My point is that irrespective of their superficial (the physical) or their perceived societal norms, they know in their heart they are a man or a woman.

Grant me some latitude and do the following . . . Define for me what it means to you to be a man.  Now I will tack a caveat on this in that you cannot uses the superficial (male physiology) or gender stereotypes (boys do this and girls do that).  When I say I am a woman I mean I connect with women on an emotional level and relate to women in a way I can never relate to men.  When I am work as a woman or just going about my day . . . I feel complete in a way I never felt as a man.  It has nothing to do with how I look or how I am dressed but everything to do with a sense of self.  Before I transitioned, I was angry, mean spirited to those around me, moody, resentful, hated everything I did not understand (including myself) . . . an all-around d-bag.  Now, not so much.  

Your comparison of the woman who claimed to be of African American decent and transgender folk is way off base IMHO.  The woman in question did this to gain credibility in the eyes of others she worked with as a civil rights lawyer.  It was about personal gain.  As a transgender person, I gain nothing and loose much.  As I said in an earlier post, this is something I would not wish on my worst enemy.  

As far as me being personally delusional . . . umm  . . . sorry to say I am “five by five” according to my last psych work-up in my previous job.  I also don’t agree with your contention that I am personally making a mockery of human life.  Conversely I am celebrating and honoring human life by being the best person I can be and living each day as if it is a gift.  If some don’t agree with how I see myself or who I am, that is their baggage to carry not mine.  However, I won’t go back to being the cynical, mean spirited d-bag I was, hating everyone and everything around me.  That is making a mockery of human life IMO.

Finally . . . dude . . .  I am a woman.   You may not agree and you can argue this point into oblivion but you won’t convince me otherwise any more than I can convince you that you aren’t a man.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Andraste

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Andraste
> 
> You may have been insulted, and I wouldn't blame you for it a bit, but overlook his tone, and try and refute the assertions.............now most of us would say it in a much nicer way but IMO, he is right.
> 
> I think I'm the hottest man who ever lived,................I have never felt 'insulted" by any of the thousands of women who thought otherwise and turned me down flat.
> Thinking something does not make it reality.



Bruce,

Unfortunately I have to disagree that thinking doesn't make something a reality.  Others may not see you as a "_hottie_" but in your mind you still are.  So your reality is not marred by others perception of you.  You are still said "_hottest man who ever lived_" and that is what defines you regardless of what some women may think.

Like you, my belief/acceptance of myself as a woman is not marred by what others think.  If someone wants to follow me about the mall mocking me or if someone thinks that I am just a dude in a dress, that is their perception and their baggage to carry.  However where we differ is that nobody is going to verbally and/or physically assault you because your said hotness is being called into question.  Nor will you be denied employment, a place to live, loose friends and family, have laws enacted to discriminate against you because you are not hot.  

To clarify, I am not being a wisenheimer, being trans is no easy row to hoe but we do it because to do otherwise can lead to some really nasty self-destructive behavior . . . that is how real it gets (been there done that and got the t-shirt).  So not hacking . . . just pointing out a difference.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Andraste

Eye,

Sorry, I don't agree with all your points in your reply so let's agree to disagree.  However, I can get behind your below point 110%   and I think my posts above will help move it in that direction. One question though . . . BTDT  ???

Cheers

Andraste




			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - Let's keep the thread moving on, you've given people the insider perspective on the subj, and I for one will say its the only 'BTDT' perspective I've ever been exposed to on the subj.
> 
> :2c:


----------



## Andraste

RogueSig said:
			
		

> Hi everyone. I'm glad to see this thread is still active. It's taken me a few days of off and on reading to catch up.
> 
> Andraste, what kind of administrative/medical process did you go through to get to where you are now? Also, do you have any advice for someone just starting out on this kind of a path?



Hi RogueSig,

WRT advice to anyone starting down this path or if you happen to be a supervisor dealing with a person starting down the path I can provide some insight based on my own personal experience.  

Generally, most people know they are transgender from an early age.  They may not quite comprehend it but they have an inkling.  I knew by about age 5 that I was not quite wired like the other boys but generally I biffed through early life, teens, and young adulthood socializing "boy" doing stereotypically guy things and topped it off by joining the military to press the fact I was uber-male.  Some transgender folk know they are transsexual (i.e., trapped in the wrong body) from the get go and others (like myself) repress, hide and blunder along the Transgender spectrum thinking they are a classic cross dresser but still all guy.  However once we have the "_it's more than just the dressing_" realization it pops a cap sort to speak and what many in the community term the "_pink fog_" rolls in.  Specifically, you are driven to dress more, you may do what I referred to as "_Ninja Femme Drives_" where you dress up and go for covert drives around the neighborhood.  This normally leads to making outings to public venues (malls, restaurants) in an effort to quell the need to be seen as the target gender.  Does this mean the person is transsexual (wants to be the target gender)?  Not always but it is a good indication.  

So my first advice to anyone who thinks or you are dealing with a subordinate/friend/family member who thinks they might be transsexual, is to see a therapist who specializes in gender identity issues.  Now folks this is not to say the person is crazy or delusional but potentially confused about where they fall on the spectrum. They may be transsexual (TS) but then again they may also be a classic cross dresser who has just found a new zeal and is moving forward at breakneck speed and now thinks they are transsexual.  The therapist (in my own case) will bring order to chaos.  The best way I can describe this would be an orchestra warming up.  My mind was like an orchestra but instead of harmony it was a bunch of individual instruments doing their own thing and the sound was chaotic, annoying and deafening.  My therapist was like a conductor in that she brought the instruments into harmony and allowed me to focus for the first time in 50 years on who I was.  It is only then that I realized I was TS and not just a cross dresser and moved forward from there.

So my best advice . . . professional therapy.  Indeed if you come out in the CAF it is a requirement in order to move forward with transition.  Again, I want to clarify, this does not mean the person is crazy or delusional nor is being TG seen as mental disorder (that was removed from the DSM IV many years ago).  They just need assistance to focus and discover where they fall along the path before making a life altering decision.  If you are cross dresser, then go forth and enjoy . . . no need to tell work or come out to the world (unless you want to) but if you are Transsexual then this is the first step to transition within the CAF.

So the process:

1. Make an appointment with your medical folks.  My advice unless you know for certain you are transsexual, merely tell your doctor you are having some gender identity issues and would like to talk to someone about them. Your doctor should at that point refer you to mental health services who will do a work-up and referral to a gender identity therapist.  This will normally last about 10 visits while the therapist helps the person to understand and move forward.

2. If the person decides they are transsexual then the medical folks will put them on a TCat for six months (could be more) while you explore medical options which could be hormone replacement therapy (HRT) all  the way to gender reassignment surgery.  Depending on your route the TCat could be longer.  Mine was quick because I have sought no medical intervention.

3. Administratively you will need to legally change your name to the target gender name and make changes to other documentation.  You can have your sex designation changed on your birth certificate in most Provinces without going through GRS so that is a step you will need to take if you want the target gender on your documentation.

4. Once you have your documentation changed, you need to have your military documentation (MPRR, ID and whatnot) to reflect your new gender and name.  Bear in mind this only moving forward and there will be no change to your name on any decorations or awards you received prior to transition.  This step is normally done in sync with the document changes above.

5. You will need your chain of command to send a letter to Logisicks to change your gender marker so you can order from the target gender catalogue and get the appropriate dress uniforms.  

The above are all administrative.  The other advice before you go weapons hot with a transition is education to your work place.  I transitioned in place which meant I was presenting as a man at work one day then a woman the next week.  Prior to that my chain of command held an information session (with my input) to discuss the transition and any accommodations made.  This provided people with a heads up and allowed them to filter questions to me should they have any.  This helped pave the way for my first day at work . . . and believe me walking into that building in a CAF skirt vice pants was the hardest thing I ever had to do . . . but it felt right.  Yes, some people were put off, others were curious and I just continued with personal interaction, responded to questions until eventually it became a non-issue.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Andraste

Pusser said:
			
		

> However, will they be?  Is there a "transgender" box on the form to tick?  If a transgender person identifies themselves on the form as female (which the system says they should) and their pers file says they're female (which it legally does), how then can their results be recorded as anything, but those of a woman, notwithstanding that they used a male body to achieve them?  In other words, I don't think our fitness evaluation system has evolved to the point of being able to score transgender personnel according to their physiology, when most other personnel records say something different.
> 
> I don't think it's a huge problem.  I don't think that having the very few number of transgender personnel in the CF possibly getting a slightly higher or lower PER score based on their FORCE results is of great concern.  Will FORCE results really differentiate between who gets promoted and who doesn't in the greater scheme of things?
> 
> Having said all of this, I am actually fundamentally opposed to higher PER points for the FORCE test, but that's a subject for another discussion.



Hi Pusser,

You make a valid point and I can only hope that should a trans person be post HRT (MtF) that they identify this to the PSP staff when they conduct their FORCE.  This is what I did and while my gender reflects "F", the results were put against a male of my age.  It was a bit of an administrative hoop but it was done.

However, after reading your post I talked to my counterpart at DFit and indicated that this is something that should be looked into with the FORCE policy.  There are (as in my case)  MtF Transsexuals who do not undergo HRT and as such their strength is aligned male.  Likewise there are FtM transsexuals who start HRT before transitioning (i.e., still are legally female) whose body strength would be more aligned male.  They are going to look at make a few adaptations to the policy.  In addition, I am helping with a rewrite of the CAF Transgender policy and will bring this point to the working group. 

Bear in mind though, once the member begins HRT for a MtF, her strength and muscle mass will decrease and become more aligned with that of a woman's at her age and such she should be assessed int that regard for any extra points.  

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Andraste said:
			
		

> Eye,
> 
> Sorry, I don't agree with all your points in your reply so let's agree to disagree.  However, I can get behind your below point 110%   and I think my posts above will help move it in that direction. One question though . . . BTDT  ???
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andraste



Nothing at all wrong with not being able to agree.  

BTDT = been there done that.  

You have experience that is very valuable, from having lived this, and more importantly you're willing to share it.


----------



## GR66

Andraste said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Grant me some latitude and do the following . . . Define for me what it means to you to be a man.  Now I will tack a caveat on this in that you cannot uses the superficial (male physiology) or gender stereotypes (boys do this and girls do that).  When I say I am a woman I mean I connect with women on an emotional level and relate to women in a way I can never relate to men.
> ...



I think it's your caveat that many people may have an issue with.  The physiological traits of male/female are the only clearly defined characteristics of male and female (fully understanding that there are certain genetic and medical conditions that make clearly defining male and female much less clear).  Sexual preference, sense of personal identity, personal and group connections on an emotional level however are subjective.  

Part of the problem I think is also the terminology.  For puritanical reasons it seems we have shifted away from talking about someone's "Sex" and now typically talk about their "Gender".  Technically they are not the same thing.  By dictionary definition "Sex" is defined by your physiology while "Gender" refers to more behavioural and cultural aspects.  What used to be called "Sex Change" operations are more commonly called "Gender Reassignment" now.  A person's Sex may not match their Gender.  

Things like washrooms, physical standards, etc. were originally designed to be SEX specific. They more or less tend to still work when at variance with an individual's GENDER when that gender is not exhibited by visible variances with societal gender norms.  Nobody questions a homosexual male using a men's bathroom because you can't visibly differentiate between a gay and straight male just by looking at them.

We have much more difficulty however dealing with gender variations that are further from the societal norms.  We're too uptight to be completely blind to differences in sex and gender and there are some circumstances where differentiation is still required due to negative aspects of human behaviour.  So when do we differentiate people by their SEX and when do it by their GENDER?  

While I agree that our culture and society still hold a very narrow view of what is "normal" male and female behaviour, does that mean that someone


----------



## Andraste

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> She does have a point.....
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-36085314



Seriously Bruce . . . I am not picking on you  .  I just want to respond to an issue which you brought up.  This will be a bit of read and a bit verbose so I apologize in advance.

Goodness . . . the dreaded bathroom debate.  I wasn’t sure if I wanted to go down this rabbit hole as it will most likely spawn a bit of a heated exchange as this is want to do as evidenced by a host of other sites which beat this into submission daily.  However, I figured I might as well give my point of view as a transwoman.  

IMO, these bills have little to do with protecting people and more to do with political grandstanding and creating a distraction to take people’s focus off the real political issues (war, terrorism, economy).  The Ancient Romans were masters of “_eye candy for the masses_” a la gladiatorial games and this is very much akin to that concept in that it gives people something to either fight/rant about or others view it as a spectator sport.  However, to counter the pro-bathroom bill stance I provide the following:

A lot of the bathroom bill advocates will continually talk about how preventing transgender folks from using the target gender bathroom (in reality this normally MtF transgender folk as you hear little about FtM folk using the men’s room) will keep sexual offenders away and make it safe for your wives and daughters.  The tragic thing is that they continually say transgender in one breath and follow-up with descriptions such as pedophile, rapist, sexual offender, pervert.  I get it . . . they are not saying that transgender people are such, but continually making the link between the two words and people being people (not all) wind up believing the two are synonymous.  All you have to do is deep dive any posts about the bathroom bill on the internet and you will find for the most part some good discussion but mixed in are comments about transgender pervs attacking little children or women.  In reality, there has never been a documented case of a transgender person hurting or attacking any person in a bathroom (adult or child).  However like some weird seven degrees of Field of Dreams “_build it and they will come_” . . . say it together enough and some people will believe it.  

So, the intent of these bills is to keep women safe in the bathrooms.  Folks, a woman is more likely to be sexually assaulted/harassed (the statistics bear this out) by someone they know in a social setting.  Should we enact bills which ensure women and men can’t socialize because men can’t be trusted to not sexually harass or assault women?  No, that would be ludicrous because the majority of men do not and the minority are going to do so irrespective of any bills/laws passed.  That is the nature of sexual predators.

Will sexual offenders try to use this as an excuse to enter a women’s restroom?  I am sure it is possible but then again they are less likely to go through all the hassle of dressing up as a woman, walk around in broad daylight in a crowded mall and try to sneak into the women’s restroom to assault someone in a venue that will get them caught for sure.  Sexual predators normally seek targets of opportunity in places where they are less likely to be observed or detected.  A lot of debates around this issue will pull out the story of the guy who entered a women’s change room and undressed claiming to be transgender.  Well, firstly he was not transgender and secondly he had severe mental issues. So yes it can happen but it would be a statistical outlier.  

Believe me I get the fear and I understand people (especially women’s) concerns.  However many think that allowing transgender people to use the women’s bathroom means it is now open season in the public restrooms.  Firstly, the laws which protect all people from assault still apply.  If you walk into a bathroom transgender or not and sexually harass or assault another person . . . it is still against the law and you will be arrested.  If you go into the bathroom, enter a stall and do your business, wash your hands and leave . . . you have broken no law.
  
Also take into account that several Canadian Provinces and several US States have laws which protect gender identity and allow a person to use the bathroom of the gender they present.  These laws have been around for some time with no increase in sexual assaults in women’s bathrooms.  Several European countries have gender neutral bathrooms - men and women doing their business together.  For any here who served in Germany and went to Caracalla Baths in Baden . . . you could share a sauna with the opposite gender and both of you with only what nature saw fit to give you . . . again no issues.  So what is this preoccupation with where a person goes pee?  So long as they do their business, are respectful and leave what is the harm.  While these bills are supposedly put into place to protect women from potential assault in the women’s restroom, these anti-trans laws pose a ferocious threat to the safety and dignity of not only trans men and women, but to anyone who doesn't conform to traditional gender roles.  In other words, a masculine looking woman may face more discrimination in a public restroom than a fully transitioned trans woman, who can go about her business without anyone being the wiser.  Point in case:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/north-carolina-woman-kicked-out-of-ladies-bathroom-by-police-after-being-mistaken-for-transgender/

And there is this:

http://www.advocate.com/business/2015/06/17/detroit-woman-kicked-out-restaurant-bathroom-looking-man-sues

This is because the bills were rushed out the door without any real method to their madness and now everyone is seeing a Tranny in every stall and some feel free take matters into their own hands because the law implies they can.  In fact one of the assaults above was executed by the police department.

Another argument put forth is that pedophiles will now have free reign to enter the women’s restrooms and attack little girls so we need to protect them.  Well, firstly being a father (yup my daughter may call me mom but I still am her father) . . . when she was that young she never went in a public restroom alone.  Also let’s not forget that a young boy can be preyed upon by a male pedophile in the men’s room.  Indeed, if it is about protecting the children what about the trans children who would be forced to use their birth gender facility.  A trans person is more at risk of being attacked/assaulted than most.  Put that trans child in their birth gender bathroom and the risk increase tenfold. 

So, to put a face to this, the below link is about a 14 year old transgirl. Specifically she was born male but identifies female.  In her case her parents (in conjunction with medical professionals) have allowed her to start androgen blocker which in effect stops puberty in its tracks – no testosterone, no development of secondary sex characteristics (no facial hair, no voice change, increased muscle mass). As such she presents more female than male.  If this were your child would you feel safe with her having to use the men’s room in a crowded mall when she is out with her friends?  What’s stopping some sexual offender from seeing her as a target of opportunity?

http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/28/this-photo-of-a-transgender-girl-is-raising-concerns-over-north-carolinas-bathroom-law-5846807/

IMO these bills are nothing to do with protection as I tried to demonstrate above but everything to do with discriminating against a group of people who just want to go pee.  However the bills enact fear, which for some lead to hate and then violence.  I was tooled up nicely by four guys because I used the women’s restroom even though the law says I can.  So you can only imagine how some people will see these laws as an open season permit on transgender folks (adults and children).

In reality this what the bathroom bills will create.  Both Micheal and Buck Angle are transmen.  Specifically, they were born female but identify male.  They have had top surgery (removal of breast tissue) but not bottom surgery (still physiologically a woman).  The bathroom bill would require them to use the women’s bathroom.

http://www.upworthy.com/heres-what-itll-look-like-if-trans-people-arent-allowed-to-use-the-right-bathroom 
http://montrealgazette.com/life/transgender-rights-buck-angel-calls-for-gender-neutral-bathrooms

Does Brae a transwoman belong in the men’s room?

http://www.sheknows.com/living/articles/1078139/new-selfie-campaign-combats-anti-trans-restroom-bill

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Eaglelord17

Andraste said:
			
		

> So, to put a face to this, the below link is about a 14 year old transgirl. Specifically she was born male but identifies female.  In her case her parents (in conjunction with medical professionals) have allowed her to start androgen blocker which in effect stops puberty in its tracks – no testosterone, no development of secondary sex characteristics (no facial hair, no voice change, increased muscle mass). As such she presents more female than male.  If this were your child would you feel safe with her having to use the men’s room in a crowded mall when she is out with her friends?  What’s stopping some sexual offender from seeing her as a target of opportunity?
> http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/28/this-photo-of-a-transgender-girl-is-raising-concerns-over-north-carolinas-bathroom-law-5846807/



I am going to start with, I find your posts very enlightening, two people I went to high school with now identify as trans (one a male identifying as a female, the other a female identifying as a male) and it gives me a bit of insight into there world. 

Secondly, this part I have snipped is the only part of the whole transgender debate I actually care about (the rest of it, I say do what you like, it doesn't effect me or anyone else). Kids (I say kids, as until they get older, can't fully understand themselves), shouldn't be given the ability to define there genders. There was a study recently that showed 98% of male children who weren't comfortable with being male, by time they finished puberty were comfortable with being male, and 88% of female who weren't comfortable with being female by time they finished puberty were comfortable with being female. 

To me that is too high a rate to use things like puberty blockers, as it has been shown the super majority will find comfort with there gender (and those that don't will be fully aware of that and can do what they please). Andraste I am curious of your thoughts on this. And my source for the information (American College of Pediatricians).

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Andraste] 
What’s stopping some sexual offender from seeing her as a target of opportunity?
[/quote]
I find this question pretty silly. What's to stop a sexual offender from seeing any 14 year old boy as a target of opportunity? 

What makes a 14 year old that looks female in a male washroom more at risk than a 14 year old that looks male in a male washroom? 

Maybe it's just me but the article seems to suggest pretty skinny girls  are more at risk to assault than girls that aren't 14 year old models?


----------



## Andraste

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I find this question pretty silly. What's to stop a sexual offender from seeing any 14 year old boy as a target of opportunity?
> 
> What makes a 14 year old that looks female in a male washroom more at risk than a 14 year old that looks male in a male washroom?
> 
> Maybe it's just me but the article seems to suggest pretty skinny girls  are more at risk to assault than girls that aren't 14 year old models?



Hi Jarnhamar,

I was using this example to demonstrate that the bathroom bills are designed (or so they say) to protect young girls from male sexual predators entering the women's bathroom and molesting them . . . which the statistic demonstrate has never occured.  Your point is exactly what I was demonstrating.  These bills do nothing to stop male sexual predators from entering the men's washroom (which is the more likely scenario) and molesting young boys or for that matter female predators from entering the women's rest room and molesting young girls.  So the argument from the pro-bathroom camp IMO is moot as it does not focus on the actual safety of children (all children) it just attempts sensationalize a non-existent boogeyman (men in women's clothing lurking in the bathroom trying to molest young girls).  My added point was that by forcing young trans girls or young trans boys into the bathroom of their birth gender, it places them at an additional risk of being assaulted/harassed for being who they are . . . trans.  As an adult trans, if someone comes at me I would like to think I could put up a decent fight, a young trans child is not likely to have that latitude   

My point was not to say that only trans kids are at risk but that the logic behind the bills is flawed precisely for the reason you pointed out.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Andraste

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I am going to start with, I find your posts very enlightening, two people I went to high school with now identify as trans (one a male identifying as a female, the other a female identifying as a male) and it gives me a bit of insight into there world.
> 
> Secondly, this part I have snipped is the only part of the whole transgender debate I actually care about (the rest of it, I say do what you like, it doesn't effect me or anyone else). Kids (I say kids, as until they get older, can't fully understand themselves), shouldn't be given the ability to define there genders. There was a study recently that showed 98% of male children who weren't comfortable with being male, by time they finished puberty were comfortable with being male, and 88% of female who weren't comfortable with being female by time they finished puberty were comfortable with being female.
> 
> To me that is too high a rate to use things like puberty blockers, as it has been shown the super majority will find comfort with there gender (and those that don't will be fully aware of that and can do what they please). Andraste I am curious of your thoughts on this. And my source for the information (American College of Pediatricians).
> 
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children



Hi Eaglelord,

I have my own thoughts on this subject and will admit many in the community do not agree with my stance.  Let me explain . . . 

From my own personal experience, I knew quite young there was something different about me.  I could not stand up loudly at age 5 and proclaim . . . I think I am a girl.  However, I did question various aspects of my maleness and societal pressures to conform (much different time when I was young).  I remember wanting to wear a dress to school like my sisters but was told no . . . vehemently by my father to the tune of a good strapping when I insisted.  In essence this desire faded because it was beat out of me.  Kids are resilient and I continued to socialize boy but still longed for all things girl, got along better with the girls at school but still . . . played sports (hockey the great past-time), went hunting with my dad, learned to fix cars, and whatnot.  Still there was always something.

I agree the prevalence of true transsexuals is very low (the statistics bear that out).  I do some outreach work with families who have children who present as trans.  For the most part . . . again this is my opinion and where many get upset with me . . . I truly believe they are gender questioning for the most part.  We all do it to some extent when we are young because we have no true sense of gender.  Just because Johnny likes to put on nail polish like his mom does not mean he is a trans girl . . . he may merely wish to emulate his mother.  Next week he could be walking around in his dad's work boots digging in the yard.  So while I agree these children need to be assessed and watched over time but IMHO they need to be allowed to develop naturally and any HRT should only be looked at once all (including the child) are certain the individual is trans.  Now I will say that for the most part this is what occurs.  A child cannot just insist they are a girl and androgen blockers get doled out like jellybeans.  This is a multi disciplinary approach including pediatric specialists in health and mental health, counseling sessions and continued monitoring.    

Now the above aside, I have met some children (tweens for the most part) who have serious GID to the point of being self destructive.  These children know deep in their core they are in the wrong body and like some adults sometimes HRT is the only way to quell the demons.  

I hope this answers your question.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Jarnhamar

Good points (in reply to me) thanks.  The bathroom thing to me is dumb,  I don't care who is beside me as long as they aren't wiping shit on the walls with their hands. 
Guys do awkward shit while using urinals always,  turf em all and make stalls everywhere. 

Another topic but "child-models"  seems way more irresponsible to me than shared bathrooms. 

But speaking about the bathroom issues if you go back aways there was a discussion which spoke to the difference between  shared bathrooms  (harmless  really) and elementary and high school change rooms and showers.  Might be an interesting read for you.


----------



## Andraste

To be honest not a big fan of crap on the bathroom walls or child models  .  My take is let kids be kids (trans or not) and if they want to sashay down the runway when they get older, that is their choice. In the meantime, let them have fun. However I feel the same way about parents who live vicariously through their children playing hockey, dancing or whatnot.  Yes, if the child has a talent, foster it, but don't make it a cult following.  

Change rooms . . . hmm . . . good question and one again where I differ from many in my community.  The bathroom thing is a hill I will die on, after all I am answering nature's call in the privacy of a shut stall as are the other ladies around me.  Change rooms . . . here is my personal take:

I am cognizant that I am physiologically male and that my presence in a women's change room would be awkward to say the least (for both the women around me and myself).  Now, I have been in coed in saunas in Europe but they (Europeans) have a different outlook on things and even so, the change rooms are still separate.  Now, if I had gone the distance (gender reassignment surgery) or even an orchiectomy (essentially a removal of the berries from the twig and berries dyad), then I would be more inclined to think the ladies vice the gents change room would be more appropriate.  At work, I still work out and an accord was reached in that a section of the male change room has been curtained off (their choice . . . not mine) to afford me privacy.  Oddly enough the men were more put out by my presence then the women so it almost ended with me in the women's change room.  I chose the men's because I was just not comfortable enough with the prospect.

Will we get to the point where men and women use communal showers . . . I think as a species it is possible but we (both genders) will have to mature a bit more before we cross that bridge.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Andraste

GR66 said:
			
		

> I think it's your caveat that many people may have an issue with.  The physiological traits of male/female are the only clearly defined characteristics of male and female



Hi GR66,

The caveat was in response to a post where the OP posited that I was making a mockery of human life by seeing men and women as made up of only the superficial (i.e., physiology, how you appear).  My point was that I don't.  Indeed it is directly opposite of the OP's contention.  Specifically, gender is a frame of mind which has nothing to do with what nature saw fit to give you.  Some transsexuals require complete reconstructive surgery to put themselves in a good place and feel the way they were meant to be. Others require only some medical procedures and others like myself require none . . . each person's transition is particular to them and there is no one way.  When I look in the mirror I don't see a man, I see a woman who just happens to have the physiological make-up of a genetic male.  It is what nature gave me and I am quite comfortable with that.  However nature also decided to give me (for lack of a better descriptor) a brain wired "woman" not "man".

Believe me, I would love to just be who I am, a woman regardless of if I am wearing a dress or my grungy work clothes when I am cutting swath with my chainsaw.  However, as you pointed out (quite accurately) society is not quite ready to perceive a person as a person irrespective of how they dress/present/look or whatnot.  Many feel out of sorts if things don't fall within a neat binary.  So, I take great strides to present reasonably well as a woman from a physical perspective.  Now this in and of itself is a laborious process which means my work day begins at 0330 hrs.  If I could just put on a light layer of make-up and head out without all the other nausea . . . I would but unfortunately society is not quite ready.  At home, I don't do make-up, I keep my hair in a ponytail and wear comfy clothes (yoga pants, best kept secret).  Do I look female? I suppose with a smaller frame, light facial hair . . . from a distance . . . possibly.  However the kid is not pretty and she never survives first contact.    

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Journeyman

Andraste said:
			
		

> Will we get to the point where men and women use communal showers . . .


Maybe that point should be introduced in the "Encouraging Fitness" thread.   op:


----------



## PuckChaser

Andraste said:
			
		

> Will we get to the point where men and women use communal showers . . .



Right after becoming a citizen requires military service in the Fleet or Mobile Infantry.


----------



## Lumber

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Right after becoming a citizen requires military service in the Fleet or Mobile Infantry.



Not soon enough...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Andraste said:
			
		

> Will we get to the point where men and women use communal showers . . . I think as a species it is possible but we (both genders) will have to mature a bit more before we cross that bridge.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andraste



Already in place in other militaries. It's North America that is lagging


----------



## Jarnhamar

Interesting (older) article about a transgender mma fighter mixing it up with a female fighter. 

http://www.libertynewsnow.com/transgender-female-mma-fighter-brutally-injures-female-opponent/article1545


----------



## Andraste

Hey Jarnharmar,

Yeah it is quite a debate but I think it was put to rest some time back.  

Fallon Fox prior to publically transitioning underwent HRT for over a year. Now the net effect of HRT is reduction of testosterone in to female levels (testosterone is what gives men your strength) this with the addition of estrogen to female levels would have reduced Fallon's body strength significantly. In essence she would have had the strength of a woman similar in size and build.  I know trans women (athletes) who prior to HRT could bench up to 280lbs with ease . . . now they are lucking to bench half that weight.  Now where her advantage would have been is bone density and size but then again a woman of similar size, bone density and fighting skill might have done just as much damage. Heck, I have fought for years and even as a guy I took some major smack downs from female sparing partners and I am quite sure if they were not holding back, they could have done significant damage.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this story.  

*U of T prof who refuses to use genderless pronouns*
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.3786140/i-m-not-a-bigot-meet-the-u-of-t-prof-who-refuses-to-use-genderless-pronouns-1.3786144



I found it an interesting read, specifically where he says " I don't recognize another person's right to decide what words I'm going to use".
I knew it was only a matter of time before the _boaty-mc boatface_ crowd decided they would be referred to pronouns such as your majesty, his highness.


----------



## Altair

Just asking because someone has asked, what is the Canadian Forces stance on transgenders in the showers?

Specifically transgenders who have not undergone SRS. I was talking about how we all shower in the same space and get changed in the same space, and they asked what do transgenders do, and I don't want to give out inaccurate information.


----------



## mariomike

Altair said:
			
		

> < snip > transgenders in the showers?



This may, or may not, help,

https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca++transgender+shower&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Vuh4Waq1HM6fXoP2n7AO&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## The Bread Guy

And while the U.S. bans transgendered troops, the CF opens the door.  

Sorta like the USMC did the day after Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed in 2011?


----------



## Andraste

Altair said:
			
		

> ... Specifically transgenders who have not undergone SRS. I was talking about how we all shower in the same space and get changed in the same space, and they asked what do transgenders do, and I don't want to give out inaccurate information.



It really depends on the comfort level of the transgender person and those around them.  There is no official policy (yet) but this is generally approached in stages. It might surprise many to know that a very small percentage of male to female transgender people get gender confirming surgery (GCS) as it is a very invasive and painful process (Google it and there are YouTube videos in great detail). As such, many TGs are post-op their entire lives and still access the appropriate change room. What many miss out on, is that the women's change room is fundamentally different from the male change room. There is a great modicum of privacy in the women's change room with towels strategically worn, changing in the shower stalls and so on.  Whereas in the male change room everything is on display (for the most part).

I access the women's change room as a trans woman because that is where I belong. I shower, change and go about my day with no real hassles. I did not just bust in one day and say . . . I'm here, accept me . . . there was much consultation and discussion to ensure all parties dignity and respect was dealt with.

I hope this provides some insight to your question.

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## daftandbarmy

It might be an issue with other arms and services but, in the infantry, as long as they're able to pull their weight and die in heals in front of the machine guns for victory like everyone else, I really don't GAF.

We all bleed red.


----------



## NSDreamer

Andraste said:
			
		

> There is no official policy (yet) but this is generally approached in stages.



 Sorry to cut in, but there is an official policy, announced in CANFORGEN 031/12 CMP 017/12 081428Z FEB 12

 CF Mil Pers Instr 01/11 Management of Transsexual Members outlays the expectations of CAF Members and management in relation to transgendered persons, dictates where the areas of responsibility lay, and who is in charge of making case by case decisions as it is important to note many transitioning cases are different.

See DWAN Link: http://cmp-cpm.mil.ca/assets/CMP_Intranet/docs/en/support/policies/cmp-milpersinstr-0111.pdf


----------



## Andraste

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> Sorry to cut in, but there is an official policy, announced in CANFORGEN 031/12 CMP 017/12 081428Z FEB 12



Hi NSDreamer,

You are correct . . . there is an instruction but it is sorely outdated. The policy is in rewrite as we speak. I should have been a bit more specific in my response when I said "there is not policy". I was referring to specific guidelines regarding accessing gender specific spaces (e.g., bathrooms/change rooms). Right now the current instruction leaves it up to a case by case in consult with the member and the CO. Upcoming changes to the policy will have specific guidelines in keeping with current legislation on the use of gender specific spaces and transgender people.  Sorry about that  

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Lumber

Andraste said:
			
		

> Hi NSDreamer,
> 
> You are correct . . . there is an instruction but it is sorely outdated. The policy is in rewrite as we speak. I should have been a bit more specific in my response when I said "there is not policy". I was referring to specific guidelines regarding accessing gender specific spaces (e.g., bathrooms/change rooms). Right now the current instruction leaves it up to a case by case in consult with the member and the CO. Upcoming changes to the policy will have specific guidelines in keeping with current legislation on the use of gender specific spaces and transgender people.  Sorry about that
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andraste



Andraste, quick question:

Does the term "transitioning" mean that they are transitioning _surgically_, or does it mean any level of transition, such as beginning to adopt the other gender's pronouns, perhaps clothing or other traditionally binary things of the opposite gender?


----------



## Andraste

Lumber said:
			
		

> Andraste, quick question:
> 
> Does the term "transitioning" mean that they are transitioning _surgically_, or does it mean any level of transition, such as beginning to adopt the other gender's pronouns, perhaps clothing or other traditionally binary things of the opposite gender?



Hi Lumber,

I can provide you with my concept of ops but it may differ from others in the community:

Transitioning is the process of reconciling one’s gender expression with one’s internal sense of gender (gender identity).  This may include any or all of the following: (1) social transition; (2) legal transition; and (3)medical transition. 

Social Transition: refers to a number of changes that can be made in a trans person's social life and situation, including: (1) use of a different name; (2) use of different gender pronouns; (3) surface changes to physical appearance (e.g., dressing in the preferred style, adopting a different hairstyle, use of make-up).

Legal Transition: refers to taking legal steps to be recognized as the target gender, including: (1) legal name change; and (2) legal change of gender maker and name on identification documents (e.g., CAF ID, passport, driver's licence).

Medical Transition: refers to medical interventions used to reconcile physical characteristics with those of the target gender. This may include hormone replacement therapy (HRT), cosmetic surgery (e.g., breast augmentation, double mastectomy) and/or gender affirming surgery (GAS).

Not all transitions are the same. Specifically, there is no checklist which you must follow in order to "transition". Some folks will socially and legally transition but never medically transition. Others might medically transition but only so far as HRT and never under GAS/GCS. 

I hope this answers your question. 

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## Lumber

Andraste said:
			
		

> Hi Lumber,
> 
> I can provide you with my concept of ops but it may differ from others in the community:
> 
> Transitioning is the process of reconciling one’s gender expression with one’s internal sense of gender (gender identity).  This may include any or all of the following: (1) social transition; (2) legal transition; and (3)medical transition.
> 
> Social Transition: refers to a number of changes that can be made in a trans person's social life and situation, including: (1) use of a different name; (2) use of different gender pronouns; (3) surface changes to physical appearance (e.g., dressing in the preferred style, adopting a different hairstyle, use of make-up).
> 
> Legal Transition: refers to taking legal steps to be recognized as the target gender, including: (1) legal name change; and (2) legal change of gender maker and name on identification documents (e.g., CAF ID, passport, driver's licence).
> 
> Medical Transition: refers to medical interventions used to reconcile physical characteristics with those of the target gender. This may include hormone replacement therapy (HRT), cosmetic surgery (e.g., breast augmentation, double mastectomy) and/or gender affirming surgery (GAS).
> 
> Not all transitions are the same. Specifically, there is no checklist which you must follow in order to "transition". Some folks will socially and legally transition but never medically transition. Others might medically transition but only so far as HRT and never under GAS/GCS.
> 
> I hope this answers your question.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andraste



Thanks, Andraste. It does answer my question.

I actually had an original question which was "does the CAF policy differentiate how they treat transgendered members based on whether they are pre, post, or currently transitioning", and then I realized that I had no idea what transitioning actually meant, so thank you for elaborating.


----------



## NSDreamer

Andraste said:
			
		

> Hi NSDreamer,
> 
> You are correct . . . there is an instruction but it is sorely outdated. The policy is in rewrite as we speak. I should have been a bit more specific in my response when I said "there is not policy". I was referring to specific guidelines regarding accessing gender specific spaces (e.g., bathrooms/change rooms). Right now the current instruction leaves it up to a case by case in consult with the member and the CO. Upcoming changes to the policy will have specific guidelines in keeping with current legislation on the use of gender specific spaces and transgender people.  Sorry about that



No worries, it is still in effect, but I imagine they are looking at a rewrite. As someone with TG folks under my command, it's certainly a tricky subject to balance everyones needs and support the member. It's harsh to say it, but it's much easier when the TG member is post OP. That being said, I've been often extremely heartened to see the level of support these members get! I've had no one come out and say a negative word, though that might be because they're worried about what I'd do to them if they did!


----------



## PuckChaser

Andraste said:
			
		

> You are correct . . . there is an instruction but it is sorely outdated. The policy is in rewrite as we speak.



An instruction outdated? In the CAF? Colour me not surprised. The transgender policy rewrite will probably be the fastest I've ever seen in my almost 2 decades of service if it is in fact in rewrite mode (which could means years away from issue).


----------



## kev994

For comparison, in DoD policy the transition is a state of mind, the body parts are immaterial. Someone can be fully transitioned but never get surgery.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:
			
		

> For comparison, in DoD policy the transition is a state of mind, the body parts are immaterial. Someone can be fully transitioned but never get surgery.



As long as they don't fall out on the 20 miler....


----------



## RogueSig

So, has anyone heard any rumors about when the updated orders might be published? The latest I heard was a news article suggesting this fall. I know that deadlines are rarely accurate in our business, but I had heard the re-write was started over a year ago...


----------



## serenamorrow

Hello, since there is a merged thread for these sort of topics, figure it would be better to post this here...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/brantford-transgender-military-rejection-1.4570379

There are key details missing about the case, with some assumptions being made, and only CBC is covering it at the moment. 

First impression is lack of consensus on what is 'transitioning' between the individual and CF medical recruitment policy, as well lack understanding of the enrollment medical process on the individuals part. 

What is the individual's status legally, socially, and medically? They would not be considered "transitioned" if any of these are not completed to the strictest sense. After that, how long was it since any of these were completed, especially medically?  Among some, one can consider themselves or another 'transitioned' by living as their gender all of the time and been on hormones for a few years or less, without getting the GRS surgery and/or changing their legal status. Everything I have read, CF medical enrollment requires at minimum the completed surgery and and legal status change. 'Social' is covered by remaining policies, rules, and such.

Now, if the individual transitioned completely in all three, then there may be disconnect between them and CF Medical, such as lack of sufficient and clear medical documentation covering their status, and/or lack of experience with dealing with trans applicants. Latter make sense if there as been no known trans applicants that been accepted and given a job offer, and the trans policy/guidelines does not cover enrollment in relation to other policies/guidelines like the Universality of Service. The former can happen if the individual did not include psych and medical letters confirming their 'transition' has being completed and no longer 'suffering' from gender dysphoria...same ones you need to get GRS surgery in Canada. Both scenarios, or mix of, can explain the quoted text of the rejection letter.

Another possibility..is it the reserve unit's medical have final say on the medical side of an application, or CF Medical in Ottawa? Maybe reserve unit not entirely on board or informed with the transgender policy?

As for the Universality of Service, unless it requires that all applicants are not to be on any medication, a hormone like Estradiol can be an injection which can last up to 3-4 weeks, or pill form that needs to be taken daily. Either case, by itself, only medical support needed is supply, and then regular check up (every six to twelve months at least) to make sure the estrogen hormone levels are still at female average. This is the case for either cis or trans women to treat menopause or hormonal imbalance.

In the end, the Canadian Forces does not owe anyone a job. From the article, the individual appears to have not followed up on all appeal process options before going to CBC and attempt to make it seem like the CF welcoming transgender recruits has a lie. 

Anyway, thank you. Let me know if I have overstepped with this.


----------



## PuckChaser

We make people wait 6 months after having laser eye surgery, yet it's somehow a massive human rights issue that we don't want to take on someone in the middle of a medical procedure? What's next? You can show up with a blown out ACL and just have the CAF take over your care?


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=PuckChaser]What's next? You can show up with a blown out ACL and just have the CAF take over your care?
[/quote]
Yes  


I was going to comment on not losing sleep over someone whose driving purpose to join the CAF appears to be to fuck off the US President BUT the CAF asked for this after that stupid tweet we put out in response to the US.

I'm surprised our PM hasn't tweeted about this, it's early though.



> "While the applicants are going through the transformation between the two genders, while they're in the process, they will be found medically unfit to join the forces,"


That seems like a very intelligent policy. I hope the CAF sticks too it but I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## ArmyRick

Agreed jarnhamar. This person has stated no real desire to join but rather join because of a decision Trump made in his country.

Now, lets put our efforts into people who want to be soldiers, sailors and airman (oops airpeople?)


----------



## Lumber

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> airman (oops airpeople?)



Aviators.


----------



## Strike

According to the CBC report, the doctor (who is also transgender) stated that she had finished her transition and was only on hormones.

So, my question is, how long ago was she considered as "complete" with her transition?  More than 6 month?  That seems to be the standard wrt medical issues.  Also, is estrogen one of those medications that would preclude enrollment?  What would be the side effects if the candidate were to go off these hormones for 6 months?

The counter argument would be that women who have gone through early menopause or had a full hysterectomy (ovaries included) would also have to take estrogen.  Are they also then ineligible to join?

Generally, people joining up who are on any kind of prescription have to have proof that they can function for a minimum of six months without their medication.  I've seen it a number of times - people with ADHD, chronic migraines, etc.

But the issue is, pretty much ever transgender is on hormones of some type.  If this is going to prevent them from enrolling then maybe we need to stop trying to recruit them.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bit off topic but serious question. Speaking of hormones will the military give me testosterone pills (or whatever)to help build and maintain muscles since my job requires a lot of heavy lifting, carrying around 100+lb backpacks and physical endurance/hardships. Men creeping up to middle age don't produce as much testosterone.  It seems just as good a reason as someone who's receiving testosterone treatment from the CAF medical system for transitioning genders, no?


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Bit off topic but serious question. Speaking of hormones will the military give me testosterone pills (or whatever)to help build and maintain muscles since my job requires a lot of heavy lifting, carrying around 100+lb backpacks and physical endurance/hardships. Men creeping up to middle age don't produce as much testosterone.  It seems just as good a reason as someone who's receiving testosterone treatment from the CAF medical system for transitioning genders, no?


Difference is, you're already in and trained and the CAF spectrum of care is responsible for you. They're trying to protect an asset with years of training and experience.


----------



## Strike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Bit off topic but serious question. Speaking of hormones will the military give me testosterone pills (or whatever)to help build and maintain muscles since my job requires a lot of heavy lifting, carrying around 100+lb backpacks and physical endurance/hardships. Men creeping up to middle age don't produce as much testosterone.  It seems just as good a reason as someone who's receiving testosterone treatment from the CAF medical system for transitioning genders, no?



You would be better served comparing it to hormone treatment for women, which you can't compare anyway.  Women are put on HRT to reduce menopause symptoms are the chances of endometrial cancer after a hysterectomy.

I doubt getting old is a reason to go on hormone therapy...but you already knew that I'm sure.   :


----------



## sarahsmom

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Bit off topic but serious question. Speaking of hormones will the military give me testosterone pills (or whatever)to help build and maintain muscles since my job requires a lot of heavy lifting, carrying around 100+lb backpacks and physical endurance/hardships. Men creeping up to middle age don't produce as much testosterone.  It seems just as good a reason as someone who's receiving testosterone treatment from the CAF medical system for transitioning genders, no?



The military will only give you testosterone pills/gel/shots/etc IF your testosterone levels are low as seen in your bloodwork.
And you will only be prescribed what correlates to your results. We have had a few members at our clinic want more because when they get their shots they feel good, like superman. So more is better in their minds.


----------



## serenamorrow

Estrogen meds are used to treat menopause, and testosterone meds for andropause. Also used to treat hormonal imbalances, like if a woman is not producing enough estrogen naturally yet they do testosterone. Relatively more common than one would think, which the Olympics and other sport organizations have discovered. 

Any usage of any medication that is not prescribed for a valid medical reason would be illegal and against CF drug policy I would think, hence cannot use hormones for performance. 

The Doctor in the article would only handle hormones, and possibly mentoring/overseeing individual transitions. They would not be able to provide psych assessments or GRS surgery, so their definition of 'transitioned' is suspect. The only place you can get it done in Canada is Montreal, and they require letters from two psychologists/therapists, GP, and endocrinologist. A trans applicant having had surgery suggests they went through all these steps, and CF does not have to. Same for legal status change, as most if not all provinces require proof of surgery for that to be done. So for CF purposes, "transitioned' is completing surgery and legal status change.

At this point, CF would have experience with existing trans members, over a hundred last I heard, in the last few decades. They should have some accumulated institutional knowledge for a transgender enrollment considerations. Base on this thread alone, that individual in the article has not been the only trans applicant that the CF handled. Did any of them completed enrollment, and recruited? 

Another question, does the new trans policy from last year or so posted/linked anywhere? Does it cover enrollment?


----------



## dimsum

Lumber said:
			
		

> Aviators.



But what happens if they want to get promoted to Corporal?   

Back on topic - the last 2 paragraphs suggest that the Dr thinks this person would not be able to stop taking meds?  If so, doesn't that then preclude someone from joining?



> Massarella says it would be impossible for McArthur to go without it.
> 
> "I've had patients who have had life threatening blood clots on estrogen who have refused to stop taking estrogen," she said. "Most transgender people will tell you they'd rather be dead than not take their hormones.
> 
> "To me, it's really a matter of life and death, in a sense, taking that medication."


----------



## Jarnhamar

Strike said:
			
		

> I doubt getting old is a reason to go on hormone therapy...but you already knew that I'm sure.   :



I didn't know that but my logical brain tells me I'm an investment to the CAF and it would be economical to keep me as strong and fit as long as possible to get their monies worth. Ah well 



[quote author=Dimsum]

Back on topic - the last 2 paragraphs suggest that the Dr thinks this person would not be able to stop taking meds?  If so, doesn't that then preclude someone from joining?
[/quote]

My read of it is that the person would choose to not stop taking them.  Not that they medically couldn't.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=serenamorrowind] A trans applicant having had surgery suggests they went through all these steps, and CF does not have to. Same for legal status change, as most if not all provinces require proof of surgery for that to be done. So for CF purposes, "transitioned' is completing surgery and legal status change.


[/quote]

I was under the impression that the majority of trans members actually never end up getting the surgery and whether or not they're considered transitioned isn't dependent on a completed surgery.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I didn't know that but my logical brain tells me I'm an investment to the CAF and it would be economical to keep me as strong and fit as long as possible to get their monies worth. Ah well
> 
> We stopped doing that when we shut down the Weapon X and Sentinel programs.
> 
> 
> 
> My read of it is that the person would choose to not stop taking them.  Not that they medically couldn't.


----------



## serenamorrow

> Back on topic - the last 2 paragraphs suggest that the Dr thinks this person would not be able to stop taking meds?  If so, doesn't that then preclude someone from joining?



No human being can function in the long term without hormones. A body need a certain amount of either estrogen or testosterone. A trans person who has had a form of genital surgery would require taking in hormone medication for the rest of their life. 



> My read of it is that the person would choose to not stop taking them.  Not that they medically couldn't.



A sentiment most if not all trans people taking hormones has, whether or not they had surgery. If one has not had a form of genital surgery, technically can stop taking hormones and the body takes over, but the mental side of things go back to worse, in turn their gender dysphoria left untreated. 




> I was under the impression that the majority of trans members actually never end up getting the surgery and whether or not they're considered transitioned isn't dependent on a completed surgery.



Definition of transition has been expanded over the years, as not all trans people seek surgery or can get it for some medical reason, yet still 'transition' socially and possibly legally too without it. 

I am only familiar with some of the more high profile and first out trans CF members, and they all had surgery, so do not know the rest of the few hundred currently in CF. Either or, they are already in the CF when they transitioned.  Trans applicants is a different story.

Likely be easier to know if we had the written CF trans policy, the one from 2012 and or the updated one from last year. Been unable to find it online, just that it exist. Does it also have guidelines and information for applicants?


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Unless our new feminist military caves to public image and changes the rules.



Feminist military? Care to expand on that comment?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

"we need 25% of the CAF to be female or it won't be operationally effective"  Not the exact words, but it was stated in late 2017 or early 2018 by a LGen.

"we are going to Mali and one of the big focuses is female peacekeepers"  [never mind the fact there is no peace to keep there at this point]

Most of the CAF Operations posts and associated pictures that show up in my newsfeed are females.  RCAF stories about female Majors deploying as a Gender Analyst Officer or whatever it's called.  

Does the list need to continue?  I've got no problem with females in the military, never have.  I have lots of problems when one group is spotlighted, call it what you want, because that can start an 'us' and 'them' mentality and that erodes teams.  I care about strong teams in the military, not anything politically correct, or pushing some political agenda.  Because when the shit hits the fan, I just want the best PERSON beside me, and I don't care if that is a female, male, if they are purple or pray to the Wood God Badunkda-dunk.  

So, for me, I kind of see where he is coming from...


----------



## mariomike

I can't speak for anyone, but I read this,

QUOTE

February 9, 2018

Global News

Canada is taking a ‘feminist approach’ to the military, defence minister says
https://globalnews.ca/news/4017318/harjit-sajjan-military-feminist/

END QUOTE


----------



## BeyondTheNow

I interpreted that comment as a personal view that CAF is feminist (thus, negative connotation) as oppose to a reiteration of comments made by various sources in the media.


----------



## Jarnhamar

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I interpreted that comment as a personal view that CAF is feminist (thus, negative connotation) as oppose to a reiteration of comments made by various sources in the media.



So you think "feminist" is a negative connotation? Me too now that you mention it. 

But in this case I'm referring to the defense minister saying Canada is taking a ‘feminist approach’ to the military.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So you think "feminist" is a negative connotation? Me too now that you mention it.
> 
> But in this case I'm referring to the defense minister saying Canada is taking a ‘feminist approach’ to the military.



As I said, I interpreted it as the word “feminist” being used as something negative. (People often throw “feminist” out as an insult.) I did not draw the conclusion that you were using the term in echoing a statement made by the defence minister, as there was no direct correlation (or I missed it) to referencing his words to the quoted comment by the other poster.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Right. 

Well it's safe to assume anytime I use "feminist"  it's negative,  if that clears things up   ;D

But in the example above my ire was aimed more towards the military being dragged into identity politics, primarily.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> Well it's safe to assume anytime I use "feminist"  it's negative,  if that clears things up   ;D
> 
> But in the example above my ire was aimed more towards the military being dragged into identity politics, primarily.



Excellent.

Yes, I’ve got that. Ire away...


----------



## serenamorrow

Here is a follow up article about the particular case:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/canadian-military-transgender-1.4587325

Whoever reviewed the medical case made a mistake, making the same assumption many have in this thread along with lack of experience with trans individuals, and they had no guidelines at medical enrollment to fall back on. In turn, mentioning they will place a failsafe measure and past along trans applicant cases and other complex medical cases to senior medical office, which I am guessing the one in Ottawa. 

Good to see they are on the ball and handled it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

That's certainly good for trans people wanting to join.  I hope she goes through with joining (and finds a deeper reason to serve).


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But in the example above my ire was aimed more towards the military being dragged into identity politics, primarily.



You don't get we, the 'kilt clad', much, do you?   iper:


----------



## Ethan18

I'm leaving for BMOQ in July. I was wondering that if I'm enrolled as female but I usually wear masculine clothing and would rather wear masculine clothing, would I be able to wear the male DEUs? I know there's not much difference (really just the button closing tbh) but do I need to acquire special permission? Or would I just specify that I would like to wear the male DEUs to the supply staff on course? Thanks for any advice


----------



## Jarnhamar

That's a really good question Ethan. There is a rumor we're supposed to be getting gender neutral grooming standards this summer, I'm not sure if that includes dress policy too.

You might run into some issues with Logistik Unicorps because they will send you the female/male deus according to the gender they have on file for you, though if you called them you might be able to get them to send you a special order. 

You might similarly run into the same issue with your chain of command where you'll be told to wear the deus according to the gender you have on file. On the other hand they might not care at all. Your best bet might be submitting a memo requesting permission. Expect  some people to want you to wear whatever according to the gender on your ID. But other people won't care or will be afraid to say no. 

You'll probably get more traction if you're identifying as a male and not just because you "want it". Don't get caught bullshitting.

I think I still have a memo saved from helping someone else with something like this I can send you if I find it (I'm not sure what the end result was).


----------



## cld617

paleomedic said:
			
		

> And you will only be prescribed what correlates to your results. We have had a few members at our clinic want more because when they get their shots they feel good, like superman. So more is better in their minds.



So they're coming to the MIR for their shots? This is why people on TRT should be administering their own shots, it allows for a more frequent dose and allows for more stability in how a person feels. TRT should not come with highs (superman) and lows.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Ethan18 said:
			
		

> I'm leaving for BMOQ in July. I was wondering that if I'm enrolled as female but I usually wear masculine clothing and would rather wear masculine clothing, would I be able to wear the male DEUs? I know there's not much difference (really just the button closing tbh) but do I need to acquire special permission? Or would I just specify that I would like to wear the male DEUs to the supply staff on course? Thanks for any advice



I’m female. Take into consideration that a DEU blazer/tunic is designed to be tapered and/or wider where it needs to be. You may think you want something that hangs straight from edge of shoulder to bottom of hip area with no curvature in hip or chest area, and for some females, that’s not a problem. But for others, sometimes the shoulders aren’t broad enough in order for the tunic to hang un-impeded. You might unintentionally end up looking like an ill-proportioned football player like I do if I throw on a man’s blazer that is loose enough in the hips. 

As it stands right now, you won’t have a lot of time to sit and customize your DEU measurements when they’re fitting you at basic. They measure you decently thoroughly for how the uniform is supposed to fit on each person, but it’s an assembly line and they want you done and out quickly. As well, there’s still a significant amount of time left in course AFTER the fitting, so when you eventually put on those DEUs, they’re quite roomy as it is. (The fun part is keeping yourself the same size so your DEUs continue to fit nicely later on In my opinion, I’d let them do their thing in terms of sizing you for the purposes of basic. When you’re done and trained and whatnot, then look into getting whatever you need altered and/or finding out if you need special permission to wear male-specific DEU and what would be entailed. That’s the most pain/headache-free way, as I see it. (_But I’m basing that strictly on how chaotic/hectic the period of time was on basic when we got all our kit and got our measurements taken._)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Sage advice.  BTN


----------



## Navy_Pete

To be fair, I know of more than a few women that wore the mens DEU pants for years because they were better tailored.  Not sure if that is still the case, as they all seem to be equally poorly fitted on just about any human form out of the box after some recent changes.  Somewhere there may be someone with big shoulders, a small chest, massive gut, small thighs and huge calves, but haven't seen one yet.

The only item that was ever really noticeably different was the navy dress cap; the male version is the peak cap with the female one having the bowler.  They recently authorized women to wear the peak cap as well (if they want) so, aside from the basic fit, there isn't necessarily any real difference with the uniforms. They don't really fit anyone well, so your best bang for the buck might be finding something that is reasonably close to fitting and taking it to a good tailor. Mileage may vary at the on base ones (recently got a new tunic properly fitted in Ottawa and they did a great job), but there are usually one or two in the area that are used to tweaking the uniform shirts and pants, if you want to invest in having at least one fully fitted set.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> To be fair, I know of more than a few women that wore the mens DEU pants for years because they were better tailored.  Not sure if that is still the case, as they all seem to be equally poorly fitted on just about any human form out of the box after some recent changes.  Somewhere there may be someone with big shoulders, a small chest, massive gut, small thighs and huge calves, but haven't seen one yet...



Yes, a main issue was the pleats. Pleats are not a female’s friend if she’s not shaped like a 2x4.


----------



## quadrapiper

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Yes, a main issue was the pleats. Pleats are not a female’s friend if she’s not shaped like a 2x4.


Don't think I ever saw anyone wearing those and looking as if they fitted, without really obvious, major, tailoring - unless the intended fit was bulging like Elizabethan breeches.


----------



## Strike

They have pants available for women now that are a mix between the male (belt loops, straighter cut and butt pockets) and female (roomier in the rear end and a bit of room in the front, enough to be able to use the pockets).  They're actually not that bad, especially as they have a strip of elastic-type material inside the waist that will grip the shirt and keep it from untucking when you lift your arms.


----------



## waningcrows

serenamorrowind said:
			
		

> Another question, does the new trans policy from last year or so posted/linked anywhere? Does it cover enrollment?



I haven't heard about a new policy being released, apart from 'Military Personnel Instruction 01/11, ‘‘Management of CF Transsexual Members”' which is from 2012 (https://www.scribd.com/document/354809378/Canadian-Forces-policy-on-transgender-service-members). That is still what is actively listed on the forces website as part of DAOD 5012-0, 'Harassment Prevention and Resolution'. Of course, that may not be up-to-date. It does not specifically cover enrollment. 

I have a handful of friends who are transgender, and it has so far been a non-issue for them with the CF. Some began transitioning before joining, others after joining. In one case, a friend of mine has been with the forces for 10 years and transitioned largely without issue.

That said, in relation to the CBC article, FtM's require medication on a weekly or biweekly basis, not on a daily basis (which MtF's usually do). That may be why the CF decided not to accept that individual (nevermind that she called it a "passion" enrollment). The term "fully transitioned" is also interesting, though, because HRT is a constant if one chooses that path. A solution for FtMs, that would take the stress off them and the military if they were deployed, is available in other countries, in the form of an injection that lasts for 3 months - it has not been approved by Health Canada, yet. Despite this, are there not CF members who are on daily medications?


----------



## ModlrMike

waningcrows said:
			
		

> Despite this, are there not CF members who are on daily medications?



Yes, but that's only part of the question. The other part is what risk does the member incur if the medication is abruptly discontinued?


----------



## RogueSig

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, but that's only part of the question. The other part is what risk does the member incur if the medication is abruptly discontinued?



That depends ALOT on what varriation of transgender you are dealing with. A non-op MTF who goes off their meds will resume having Testosterone, and should physically be fine. Where as a post-op MTF who goes off meds, will get sick and die from not having horomones. I imagine the same is true for FTM.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A friend of mine who is pregnant is not looking forward to wearing the CF "tent" as she calls it. Another area where the female uniforms are lacking.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Sad


*Reaction to Edmonton Pride decision to ban police, military from parade*
https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/reaction-to-edmonton-pride-decision-to-ban-police-military-from-parade-1.3967696


> The Edmonton Pride Festival Society is under scrutiny after it decided to ban police and military members from future parades.
> 
> Edmonton Pride Festival Society banned the Edmonton Police Service, RCMP and the military after a group that included trans people and people of colour protested their presence at Saturday’s parade on Whyte Avenue.
> Related Stories
> 
> 
> EPS, RCMP, and the military were have been banned from future pride parades by the Edmonton Pride Festival Society.
> 
> The protesters demanded that police and military members would not be invited to future parades, that Edmonton Pride hired and included more trans people and people of colour in the festival, and that the history of police oppression against the LGBTQ community be more acknowledged.
> 
> Edmonton Pride agreed to their demands, and the parade resumed shortly after.


----------



## serenamorrow

How does the article relate to this thread?


----------



## kratz

LGB*T*Q2SIA

The Pride parade includes Transgender people, some who are in the military and might be in the EPS.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Hi Serenamorrowind,

I think it has a lot to do with this topic.

In the past around 22 or 24 years ago it used to be illegal to be gay in the military (and I assume transgendered would fall in that category?). Not just _Don't Ask Don't Tell_ kind of gay but military police investigators would go through suspected homosexual's garbage looking for some sort of proof of being gay.

Fast forward to today. 
-We actively target Transgendered people in recruiting and have a military wide policy on it.  
-Macleans suggests experts say there is a higher proportion of transgender people in the military than the general population. 
-One of the first requirements for deploying on a mission is being qualified in a course that discusses gender.
-I'm sure we have Trans awareness days and fly pride flags for certain events.

All this to say as an employer we're pretty progressive when it comes to transgendered employees, wouldn't you agree?


By using Black Lives Matter terrorist tactics to force the ban the military members (in uniform) from Pride those people are, if you ask me, putting transgendered military members in a crappy situation where they can't partake in the pride parade and be proud members of the military at the same time. It's a garbage move by them and they're part of the problem that turn an event supposedly about tolerance into a SJW political pissing context.  Who are they going to ban next in the name of tolerance? If I was a trans CAF member I'd be livid.


----------



## serenamorrow

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/8nuusj/a_canadian_first_trans_flag_flies_at_cfs_alert/

I agree, certainly makes it an awkward position for a trans member of CF.  Also makes it an awkward position for persons of color in the CF. Including women in the CF.  Gay, lesbian, bi, etc. 

I was in women's studies in university the first time I applied, I got into a class discussion about women in war. The expressed logic was, because women suffered by the military in nearly all conflicts and past sexual assaults and harassment issues...also anti-war sentiments... women should not be in a the military as that would supporting and in turn anti-feminist. I respectfully disagreed, and debated, citing the changes and gradual open support. Nope, they still keep to their preconceptions. I ended up writing a paper on it even in response.

So, should we put articles of protests against the military that includes women, even specifically mentioning them, into the 'Women in the CF' superthread?

I understand why it is in this thread and how it relates, I am just questioning the subtext while trying to avoid making assumptions. Creates the impression that trans members should be indirectly held responsible for the actions and decisions of some individuals in their category group. 

I apologize if this sounds like I am arguing or starting one. I have a thing about critical thinking and logical form.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Serena

[quote author=serenamorrowind]

So, should we put articles of protests against the military that includes women, even specifically mentioning them, into the 'Women in the CF' superthread?[/quote]

I don't think so, no.

[quote author=article] that included trans people and people of colour[/quote]
[quote author=article] that Edmonton Pride hired and included more trans people and people of colour[/quote]

The article I posted actually didn't specifically single out women, but it does mention Trans and PoC specifically.



> I understand why it is in this thread and how it relates, I am just questioning the subtext while trying to avoid making assumptions. Creates the impression that trans members should be indirectly held responsible for the actions and decisions of some individuals in their category group.


Given the nature of the demands I would deduce that trans and POC were the actual driving force behind the ban. That said I'm guessing most here would sympathize what position it puts our own trans members in and see it more as selfish politically motivated behavior, which anyone can be guilty of, rather that "trans people are bad".


----------



## BeyondTheNow

> Fast forward to today.
> -We actively target Transgendered people in recruiting and have a military wide policy on it.
> -Macleans suggests experts say there is a higher proportion of transgender people in the military than the general population.
> -One of the first requirements for deploying on a mission is being qualified in a course that discusses gender.
> -I'm sure we have Trans awareness days and fly pride flags for certain events.
> 
> All this to say as an employer we're pretty progressive when it comes to transgendered employees, wouldn't you agree?



Side note: Perhaps so. Don’t make us sound too perfect yet though. Remember, CAF still has an incredibly long way to go in weeding out members who still openly voice their disapproval for anything outside heterosexuality and/or their version of what should or shouldn’t be considered “normal” in terms of sexuality, gender identification, etc etc. and their ability/suitability to serve. We can keep making GBA courses and bystander training and whatever else mantadory all we like, but it doesn’t stop some people from being ignorant a-holes with no filters between brain and mouth. We’re on the right track, but we have a lot of work to do.


----------



## Jarnhamar

More side notes: So what happens when a very religious member openly states homosexuality is a sin,  per their religious teachings? Would you weed those members out too? 

Could *I* not have an opinion transgenderisim  is weird and not normal?  As long as I'm not an asshole about it? 

I feel weeding people out for voicing disproval about X seems harsh.  Maybe it's a matter of personal opinion in private vice self-identifying as military. Except the proud boys were outted on personal time.  Big side note 

But back to the recent posts yea we're not perfect but we as an institution came really far, which is why the call to ban military members (and the cowardly acceptance of demands) seems so strange.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> More side notes: So what happens when a very religious member openly states homosexuality is a sin,  per their religious teachings? Would you weed those members out too?
> 
> Could *I* not have an opinion transgenderisim  is weird and not normal?  As long as I'm not an asshole about it?
> 
> I feel weeding people out for voicing disproval about X seems harsh.  Maybe it's a matter of personal opinion in private vice self-identifying as military. Except the proud boys were outted on personal time.  Big side note
> 
> But back to the recent posts yea we're not perfect but we as an institution came really far, which is why the call to ban military members (and the cowardly acceptance of demands) seems so strange.



“Weeding out” meaning that given the cross-section of the military (and public in general, of course) it’s reasonable, and expected, that there will be conflicting thoughts/opinions/feelings about a wide variety of subject matter. But as it’s clear that CAF is moving towards a certain expectation/direction towards inclusion, and especially given the present-day ‘Respect in CAF’ initiative/ethos, there are certain thoughts/opinions/feelings that are not suitable to be expressed/discussed in the workplace. Mostly common sense remarks that any reasonable person should understand shouldn’t be aired as common knowledge. Save that stuff for one’s friends behind closed doors or after hours or whatever.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=BeyondTheNow] thoughts/opinions/feelings that are not suitable to be expressed/discussed in the workplace. [/QUOTE] 
[quote author=Beyond The Now] 
Save that stuff for one’s friends behind closed doors or after hours or whatever. 
[/quote]

Good post, totally agree with you. My concern would be the CAF turning into a Salem - esk environment. Going through people's electronic garbage cans, so to speak. 

Saving one's beliefs for after hours didn't work well in the example I gave from out east.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Good post, totally agree with you. My concern would be the CAF turning into a Salem - esk environment. Going through people's electronic garbage cans, so to speak.
> 
> Saving one's beliefs for after hours didn't work well in the example I gave from out east.



And it’s certainly not my intent to infer that CAF _should_ be. My main point, however, is that regardless of what education and measures are implemented in order to condition people to understand that certain remarks/behaviours are no longer work-appropriate/permitted, there’s always the ones who feel everyone should be entitled to hear what they have to say. Those are the problem ones—the ones who can dish out their beliefs and reasons for it, but can’t handle the possibility that they might be (dare the majority think) wrong. The ones who have zero ability to understand that they’re in the midst of those who may be deeply hurt/offended by their comments, and/or they just don’t care.

We all, myself included, have probably uttered an off-the-cuff comment that some may have frowned upon. But that’s an entirely different matter from expressed, hurtful comments about deeply personal things such as, (like you mentioned) religion, sexuality, etc. Some people just don’t get it.


----------



## Daishi

Who cares what's between someones legs? Or what they identify as? As long as they can do the job, effectively and without being a burden to their fellow "co-workers", let whoever in. Most of the issues are with people that are uncomfortable with their own sexuality or are bigoted in command level, making decisions. 

If you want to identify as a black, lesbian, unicorn (a colourful example) and pop HRT pills/injections like candy, and if the forces can reasonably handle the pressure of providing the medications, then so be it. It's where our "society" is heading. As long as they can preform the trade they are in 100%, who cares?

If they want to serve our country, that's a resource we are in short supply of. Why would you turn a candidate away based on what they want to identify as?


----------



## JesseWZ

Daishi said:
			
		

> Who cares what's between someones legs? Or what they identify as? As long as they can do the job, effectively and without being a burden to their fellow "co-workers", let whoever in. Most of the issues are with people that are uncomfortable with their own sexuality or are bigoted in command level, making decisions.
> 
> If you want to identify as a black, lesbian, unicorn (a colourful example) and pop HRT pills/injections like candy, and if the forces can reasonably handle the pressure of providing the medications, then so be it. It's where our "society" is heading. As long as they can preform the trade they are in 100%, who cares?
> 
> If they want to serve our country, that's a resource we are in short supply of. Why would you turn a candidate away based on what they want to identify as?



I'm going to weigh in here as a *Mentor... *

_Daishi_ Have you read this entire thread? Are you currently serving? Your post history indicates you are in the recruiting process. You will learn very quickly if you complete the recruiting process and join our ranks that your experience lends you credibility. Currently, you are neither transgender, nor in the CF (I assume, so please correct me if I'm wrong...). This thread is about transgender persons experience within the CF. While _I applaud_ your willingness to serve Canada and desire to see the CF as a reflection of Canadian Society, there is a bit more to the discussion then the CF just being able to "provide the medications". It does disservice to your argument to wash over important details, which this thread spent the last 17 pages discussing. 

Finally, the CF actually *does* have a surplus of applicants - we are not in short supply of candidates. I agree we are not in the business of turning away a candidate based on their gender identity, but neither can we not employ some level of scrutiny to our applicants to ensure they are *medically fit* to carry out their assigned tasks. 

In short, it would be prudent to read the whole discussion to get a sense of what the discussion is currently focused on. Then, you can add an example, anecdote, or experience, or rebut a discussion point and support your position. Otherwise, it feels a bit like virtue signalling.


----------



## TCM621

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> “Weeding out” meaning that given the cross-section of the military (and public in general, of course) it’s reasonable, and expected, that there will be conflicting thoughts/opinions/feelings about a wide variety of subject matter. But as it’s clear that CAF is moving towards a certain expectation/direction towards inclusion, and especially given the present-day ‘Respect in CAF’ initiative/ethos, there are certain thoughts/opinions/feelings that are not suitable to be expressed/discussed in the workplace. Mostly common sense remarks that any reasonable person should understand shouldn’t be aired as common knowledge. Save that stuff for one’s friends behind closed doors or after hours or whatever.



I would like to direct your attention to section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms



> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> 
> (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
> 
> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
> 
> (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
> 
> (d) freedom of association.



At no point in that document is a Canadian required to keep their beliefs "behind closed doors".  We are not talking about harassment or discrimination now. We are talking about beliefs and expressions of those beliefs. One should be polite and not interfere with someone in the work environment but if someone is devoutly Muslim, for example, and they believe homosexuality is forbidden by Allah should they lie when asked?


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I would like to direct your attention to section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms
> 
> At no point in that document is a Canadian required to keep their beliefs "behind closed doors".  We are not talking about harassment or discrimination now. We are talking about beliefs and expressions of those beliefs. One should be polite and not interfere with someone in the work environment but if someone is devoutly Muslim, for example, and they believe homosexuality is forbidden by Allah should they lie when asked?



I believe I was making the point clear in my posts that I’m specifally referring to those whose comments DO fall into harassment and discrimination. Hurtful, offensive comments. If not, I’ll make that clear now. That’s what I’m talking about.


----------



## serenamorrow

Discussion is digressing, as expression beliefs/opinions vs safe work environment is more general separate topic. 

I've been friends with individuals whom I often disagree with topics, and even disagree with certain aspects of each other, yet we still get along base on actions, character, mutual respect, able to work together professionally and other contexts even if not personally. Short from advocating/agreeing/believing violence on other people base on certain aspects of who they are or their politics...there is no point shutting down someone, unfriend or terminate or discriminate or what have you base one or two thing you disagree, or base on who they voted. 

It comes a point though, that once you achieve mutual respect and working well well together professionally, do not want to jeopardize that. So refrain from saying or doing things, else risk uncomfortable working environment, if not for them, then for yourself. 

Anyway. I am in the recruitment process, and not in the CF at present.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Tcm621]
At no point in that document is a Canadian required to keep their beliefs "behind closed doors".  We are not talking about harassment or discrimination now. We are talking about beliefs and expressions of those beliefs. One should be polite and not interfere with someone in the work environment but if someone is devoutly Muslim, for example, and they believe homosexuality is forbidden by Allah should they lie when asked?
[/quote]

Except today you may very well need to keep your beliefs to yourself if you want to keep your job. The CAF especially included.

[quote author=BeyondTheNow] Hurtful, offensive comments. 
[/quote]

The threshold for what's offensive these days seems pretty low.


----------



## TCM621

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I believe I was making the point clear in my posts that I’m specifally referring to those whose comments DO fall into harassment and discrimination. Hurtful, offensive comments. If not, I’ll make that clear now. That’s what I’m talking about.



As long as we are making a distinction between the expression of one's belief and using those beliefs to justify harassment and/or discrimination, I think we are on the same page.


----------



## 211RadOp

CANFORGEN was posted today.



> CANFORGEN 043/19 - CMP 026/19 181954Z MAR 19
> 
> CF MIL PERS INSTR 01/19 // INSTR PERS MIL 01/19
> 
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CANFORGEN IS TO ANNOUNCE THE RELEASE OF THE UPDATED CF MIL PERS INSTR 01/19 TRANSGENDER GUIDANCE, WHICH SUPERCEDES CF MIL PERS INSTR 01/11 MANAGEMENT OF CF TRANSSEXUAL MEMBERS
> 
> 2. GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSSION ARE NOW PROHIBITED GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. THE PREVIOUS CF MIL PERS INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN REVISED TO ALIGN WITH NEW LEGISLATION AND POLICIES ADDRESSING HUMAN RIGHTS
> 
> 3. THE CAF IS COMMITTED TO BEING INCLUSIVE. IN PARTICULAR, THE CAF RESPECTS EVERY MEMBER S RIGHT TO DEFINE THEIR OWN GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSION THIS INSTRUCTION IS PROVIDED TO ASSIST COMMANDING OFFICERS AND TRANSGENDER CAF MEMBERS IN UNDERSTANDING THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. KEY POINTS INCLUDE:
> 
> a. RESPECTING AND PROTECTING THE PERSONAL AND MEDICAL PRIVACY OF THE TRANSGENDER CAF MEMBER,
> 
> b. ESTABLISHING AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE TRANSGENDER CAF MEMBER AND THEIR CO, AND
> 
> c. USING A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH IN DEVELOPING AN ACCOMODATION PLAN
> 
> 4. COMMANDING OFFICERS MUST ENSURE MEMBERS UNDER THEIR COMMAND ARE PROVIDED WITH A WORKPLACE FREE FROM HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION. THE RISK OF BREACHING THIS HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERATIVE MAY BE HEIGHTENED WHEN A TRANSGENDER CAF MEMBER SEEKS TO ALIGN THEIR GENDER EXPRESSION WITH THEIR GENDER IDENTITY. IMMEDIATE LEADERSHIP ACTION IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS ANY DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT IN ORDER TO REINFORCE DIVERSITY AS A CORE CAF VALUE THAT IS CRITICAL TO OPERATIONAL SUCCESS
> 
> 5. TO PROTECT SAFETY, COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE REMINDED OF THEIR REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT OPERATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENTS AND/OR INDIVIDUAL RISK ASSESSMENTS IAW DAOD 5516-4, RESTRICTIONS OF DUTY
> 
> 6. FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THIS INSTRUCTION, INQUIRIES MAY BE MADE TO THE DIRECTORATE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY
> 
> 7. THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAN BE ACCESSED AT HTTP://CMP-CPM.MIL.CA/EN/POLICIES/CF-MIL-PERS-INSTR.PAGE
> SIGNED BY LGEN C.A. LAMARRE, CMPC


----------



## Jarnhamar

Will this CANFORGEN be like the Boot and Beard CANFORGENs and the CoC interpret it how they see fit?


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Will this CANFORGEN be like the Boot and Beard CANFORGENs and the CoC interpret it how they see fit?



The MSM would have a field day if it happened that way.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Will this CANFORGEN be like the Boot and Beard CANFORGENs and the CoC interpret it how they see fit?



Yours too, eh?


----------



## dangerboy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Will this CANFORGEN be like the Boot and Beard CANFORGENs and the CoC interpret it how they see fit?



If you read the policy there is not much to interpret, it spells things out fairly clearly. Most of the info is nothing new and fairly common sense.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dangerboy said:
			
		

> If you read the policy there is not much to interpret, it spells things out fairly clearly. Most of the info is nothing new and fairly common sense.



The whole LGBT2Q+ thing is about as new as you can get for any organization. 

The CAF? An organization that can still, in many cases, barely get its head around legalizing some facial hair? Even newer.... 

Sadly, because so many other 'new things' have been dumped on the organization, more or less all at once and without much of a well thought out change leadership strategy, I'm sure that we'll be seeing stress fractures appear in a variety of places....and not just between the eyebrows of the RSM


----------



## kajsmetke

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The whole LGBT2Q+ thing is about as new as you can get for any organization.
> 
> The CAF? An organization that can still, in many cases, barely get its head around legalizing some facial hair? Even newer....
> 
> Sadly, because so many other 'new things' have been dumped on the organization, more or less all at once and without much of a well thought out change leadership strategy, I'm sure that we'll be seeing stress fractures appear in a variety of places....and not just between the eyebrows of the RSM



Yes exactly..but this is what about is our world now ..  but what do you think about LGBT2Q thing?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kajsmetke said:
			
		

> Yes exactly..but this is what about is our world now ..  but what do you think about LGBT2Q thing?



What exactly do you mean by "thing"?


----------



## garb811

I’d also be curious as to why some people seem to think this is “new”. LBGTQ+ pers have been serving openly since 1992. That includes the first serving member to undergo sex reassignment surgery as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar

garb811 said:
			
		

> I’d also be curious as to why some people seem to think this is “new”. LBGTQ+ pers have been serving openly since 1992. That includes the first serving member to undergo sex reassignment surgery as well.



I don't really think it's been genuinely accepted until recently. I think a lot of lipservice was paid to it in the past.


----------



## mariomike

garb811 said:
			
		

> LBGTQ+ pers have been serving openly since 1992.



For reference,

New York Times
OCT. 11, 1991

Canada Ending Anti-Gay Army Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/world/canada-ending-anti-gay-army-rules.html


----------



## dapaterson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The whole LGBT2Q+ thing is about as new as you can get for any organization.



New?  The former policy on transgender CAF members was about a decade old.  As I recall, the CAF prohibitions on homosexuality were phased out a quarter century ago.

If anyone thinks this is new, they haven't been paying attention.


----------



## QV

To be fair, anything less than 30 years old is considered new in this org.


----------



## lohocard

As a trans man (FTM) currently serving in the Forces for almost 2 years now, I can shed some light or try to answer some questions anybody may have on the topic. 

After reading this entire thread, it still looks like people may want to be more educated. I'm still learning too (with the policies set in place in the military) even though I've been a legal male for over 5 years now.  ;D

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar

lohocard said:
			
		

> As a trans man (FTM) currently serving in the Forces for almost 2 years now, I can shed some light or try to answer some questions anybody may have on the topic.



I have a couple if you're offering.

What was the biggest obstacle for you joining and doing your initial training?

Being a FTM trans man what do you find is the hardest thing being in the CAF now that you're trained? (or two years later?


----------



## lohocard

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I have a couple if you're offering.
> 
> What was the biggest obstacle for you joining and doing your initial training?
> 
> Being a FTM trans man what do you find is the hardest thing being in the CAF now that you're trained? (or two years later?



The biggest obstacle for me joining was the the whole showering/change room situation. I have not undergone bottom surgery (for my reasons..if you want to know specifically I can discuss that) so it was hard for me to accept that I would be showering with possible assholes who would make comments. For me to join, I would do what I had to do, but if I found a way around it and to not deal with it, I would try. 

So the second day of basic I went up to my Sgt who never dealt with a trans person before, I told him right off the bat that I was trans and that if I had to shower and change with everyone, I would, but that I didn’t want to deal with unnecessary harassment. He talked to the IC and it went up the chain. They agreed and were very accommodating to me. The Major brought me into his office and pointed out that everyone is still “learning and in the process of making the CF aware of trans people etc.” He gave me a chit to shower and change in a separate change room 10 ft away from the others.

No one in my platoon seemed bother by this, and barely noticed as I was always the first one out anyway after Pt. I was in the blue sector so changing and showering wasn’t a problem there due to privacy. I let my entire pod of 6 guys know that I was trans, and that if were gonna have a problem it was THEIR problem. They all agreed and didn’t care and carried on. The whole platoon probably found out later on in the course but there weren’t any problems. My instructors didn’t treat me any different from the rest, I got jacked up all the time as per lol. 

As for the hardest thing NOW...well. I’ve passed well as a man that nobody on my base knows I’m trans. It’s not that I’m scared to tell them, it’s almost like why bother? Just see me as a soldier that does my job and if you find one for any reason, well whatever. Why bring it up unless it needs to be said? Nobody in Borden knew either (on QL3/other courses). There’s a private shower in the shacks. 

The hardest thing for me will be going on deployment. I’ve talked to 3 doctors (st Jean, Borden, and on my home base) about bringing my HRT overseas. They seemed pretty uneducated and all said “let’s cross that bridge when we get to it” - which worries me a bit. I want to deploy, I want to go places in my career. Adding on to that, deploying and using the facilities there. People will probably find out eventually. Not sure how it works when that’ll happen. I suppose I may just have to confront people at that point. 

Otherwise, work has been great, lol. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AKa

lohocard said:
			
		

> The hardest thing for me will be going on deployment. I’ve talked to 3 doctors (st Jean, Borden, and on my home base) about bringing my HRT overseas. They seemed pretty uneducated and all said “let’s cross that bridge when we get to it” - which worries me a bit. I want to deploy, I want to go places in my career.



Depending on your trade and the role, simply bringing your meds on deployment may not be an issue.  Lots of us require daily meds and are still considered deployable.  I for one, need my thyroid meds daily or I will slowly turn into a paperweight.  Of course, I'm not on the pointy end so even on deployment I generally never lived too rough. 

And yes, "going places" is the best part of this career!

Cheers,

AK


----------



## Scott

lohocard,

Thanks a bunch for sharing - great insights for those curious.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thanks for the insight lohocard, it's nice to hear stories like that.


----------



## lohocard

Scott said:
			
		

> lohocard,
> 
> Thanks a bunch for sharing - great insights for those curious.
> 
> Cheers



It is with my pleasure. I’m glad people found it that way.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Somerandomfellow

Curious about non-binary genders, if you’re non binary (don’t associate with any genders) who’s dress regs would you have to abide by?


----------



## mariomike

Somerandomfellow said:
			
		

> Curious about non-binary genders, if you’re non binary (don’t associate with any genders) who’s dress regs would you have to abide by?



I don't know.

But, for reference to the discussion,



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> No, because there is no option for "non-binary" in any official capacity within the CAF, < snip >


----------



## dimsum

AK said:
			
		

> Depending on your trade and the role, simply bringing your meds on deployment may not be an issue.  Lots of us require daily meds and are still considered deployable.



Second that.  A fair percentage of aircrew are on airsickness meds, and we deploy all the time with no issues (on that end).  I don't take them, but I'd think that the ones that do take enough to last the entire deployment.


----------



## RogueSig

As others have said, thanks for sharing Lohocard.

Following his example, I am MTF and would be open to answering questions as well. I have been serving 8 years now, and been openly trans for 1.

Regarding the non-binary question, this would be handled as apart of creating the member's Accommodation Plan, in accordance with the new guidance.
What would likely be seen is the member being granted female hair regs, as it gives freedom for long or short styles. Their DEU would likely not change, though again that would depend on how the plan was decided. It is very accurate that there is no official capacity for non-binary, and the plan would therefore be unique to the member and the unit they made it with.

Regarding Meds, there is nothing to stop you from goin on any tour AFTER your med dosages are deemed finalized by you ME/ENDO. Your employability overseas may be effected if the MO still feels you need regular blood work (not a medic, no clue what a field clinic can test).

There is one thing which does affect your deployability however, and that is the host nation. The military will not post an LGBT person to a place where they would be at an increased risk compared to their fellow soldiers. What this means is, in the case of deployments where the host nation has deemed trans people to be illegal, we cannot be deployed there. There are also postings where LGBT persons cannot be selected for the same reasons.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=RogueSig] 

There is one thing which does affect your deployability however, and that is the host nation. The military will not post an LGBT person to a place where they would be at an increased risk compared to their fellow soldiers. What this means is, in the case of deployments where the host nation has deemed trans people to be illegal, we cannot be deployed there. There are also postings where LGBT persons cannot be selected for the same reasons.
[/quote]

Would the CAF extend this policy, say, to a Jewish member of the CAF slated to deploy to Iraq or another strict Muslim country?


----------



## blacktriangle

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Would the CAF extend this policy, say, to a Jewish member of the CAF slated to deploy to Iraq or another strict Muslim country?



Or to say a female member slated to deploy into combat anywhere in the MENA region...


----------



## BeyondTheNow

I’m just going to insert a preemptive MOD comment here...

Those questions are legitimate. And respectful, open, exploratory, dialogue is encouraged. *However*, you are both intelligent users and I know you can foresee the ways in which this thread could go downhill, and fast, with the spin those questions can encompass.

*Therefore*, everyone is to proceed with caution and thoughtfulness while this conversation goes forward. 

This is the only warning. 

Staff


----------



## Jarnhamar

DetectiveMcNulty said:
			
		

> Or to say a female member slated to deploy into combat anywhere in the MENA region...



That's a good question too. For me I look at it as a matter of fairness. Is it fair a single mbr might have to deploy twice because I hypothetically don't have my family care plan in order?

Some places we might go may very well present a very real danger to a trans member, not from an enemt but our partners. 
Would it be fair then for a female member to refuse a deployment to an area they feel their gender may put them at an increased risk?
And of course one might also ask if the policy about trans members not being deployed to hostile countries is fair.


----------



## blacktriangle

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's a good question too. For me I look at it as a matter of fairness. Is it fair a single mbr might have to deploy twice because I hypothetically don't have my family care plan in order?
> 
> Some places we might go may very well present a very real danger to a trans member, not from an enemt but our partners.
> Would it be fair then for a female member to refuse a deployment to an area they feel their gender may put them at an increased risk?
> And of course one might also ask if the policy about trans members not being deployed to hostile countries is fair.



The CAF doesn't like to ask the hard questions, as you know. 

The CAF is going to send people into questionable situations for questionable reasons. I respect anyone brave enough to do that regardless of their status or background. With that said, I'd adrep lots of 9mm and thermite for them just in case. Anyways I guess I will leave this topic be.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I don't want any member put in any more risk than they need to be but I hope we stick to a more robust view/approach.  A member of the CAF is a member of the CAF, get over your religious or cultural bias.  Because honestly we need every able bodied person we can get.


----------



## Strike

It would likely be looked at more in the legality of things.  For example, I doubt that any trans member would even be considered for any kind of trip to Brunei given that country's current laws.

Again, it would all likely be addressed on a case-by-case basis and dependant on several factors.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Strike]  For example, I doubt that any trans member would even be considered for any kind of trip to Brunei given that country's current laws.

[/quote]
I had to google that place, sounds shitty. Interesting point, but trans members aren't nessairly homosexual. Do you think a non-trans, homosexual service member would have a good case not to deploy to Brunei?


----------



## lohocard

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I don't want any member put in any more risk than they need to be but I hope we stick to a more robust view/approach.  A member of the CAF is a member of the CAF, get over your religious or cultural bias.  Because honestly we need every able bodied person we can get.



You’re right. I’d be willing to go anywhere regardless of what the country’s “laws” are etc. It’s not their business to even know that I’m trans in the first place. How would they know? Tell everyone to drop their pants on the way into the country? There’s no way of them finding out unless captured- and in that case, bad things could happen to anyone regardless if they’re trans or not. My chain doesn’t even know I’m trans. They don’t need to know unless there’s an issue. The only ones that know on my base are the docs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jarnhamar

lohocard said:
			
		

> You’re right. I’d be willing to go anywhere regardless of what the country’s “laws” are etc. It’s not their business to even know that I’m trans in the first place. How would they know? Tell everyone to drop their pants on the way into the country? There’s no way of them finding out unless captured- and in that case, bad things could happen to anyone regardless if they’re trans or not. My chain doesn’t even know I’m trans. They don’t need to know unless there’s an issue. The only ones that know on my base are the docs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It took me a little while to wrap my head around the bigger picture.

I think the concern with this might be with transitioning members that look different or look transitioning. I'm not saying that to be disrespectful but I think you can understand what I mean?

What if it's the opposite. A trans member wants to deploy and the chain of command says no it's too dangerous which denies the member an opportunity to gain operational experience and a lot of tax free money (including bonuses). Grounds for a redress I'd think.

Interesting debate for sure.


----------



## Sub_Guy

My feeling is that we all go as one or we don't go at all.

Host nation doesn't support it, then the host nation doesn't get our support.  

I know it is much more complicated than that.  Although it doesn't have to be.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What if it's the opposite. A trans member wants to deploy and the chain of command says no it's too dangerous which denies the member an opportunity to gain operational experience and a lot of tax free money (including bonuses). Grounds for a redress I'd think.
> 
> Interesting debate for sure.



There were (maybe still are on the Tac Hel det?) female aircrew on OP IMPACT, flying over Iraq and Syria.  I have a feeling that they wouldn't be treated the same as male aircrew if captured.  

Still, as far as I know, there was no talk of restricting/preventing them from going over there.


----------



## blacktriangle

Dimsum said:
			
		

> There were (maybe still are on the Tac Hel det?) female aircrew on OP IMPACT, flying over Iraq and Syria.  I have a feeling that they wouldn't be treated the same as male aircrew if captured.
> 
> Still, as far as I know, there was no talk of restricting/preventing them from going over there.



I'm pretty sure the propaganda value of holding Cdn aircrew hostage (because that's what they'd be) would be enough to get us to stop flying around. Male or female, they would do some pretty sick things. But yes, it would be worse for female personnel. I think it would have a shocking impact here at home in the media etc.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I had to google that place, sounds shitty. Interesting point, but trans members aren't nessairly homosexual. Do you think a non-trans, homosexual service member would have a good case not to deploy to Brunei?


The British Army has a substantial training and fwd deployment base there. I wonder if they are going to relocate it now.


----------



## Jarnhamar

In training I've been told that men run a greater risk of being sexually assaulted than females because its about power.

Unless we're talking statically because more men deploy than women I really don't believe person for person men run a greater risk. I think women are generally way more at risk. 

Given how sick and psychotic the bad guys are over there (burned alive, drowned in a cage) the threat of sexual assault from the enemy seems insignificant, all things considered?

I like Dolphin_Hunters approach to working with our allies. Don't like our policy? Don't ask for help.


----------



## RCDtpr

Now admittedly I know very little on the subject, but my understanding is a transgendered individual is on quite a bit of absolutely necessary medication?  How does the CAF get said medication into the country country if that country doesn’t allow it?  Even in Iraq and Kuwait everything we bring (with some obvious exceptions for certain units) has to be declared to their customs through detailed manifests etc.  If said country says no to that medication then what’s the option?  Smuggle it illegally?

I disagree with ANY member of the CAF not being able to deploy and serve, however, I can understand how certain issues can bring logistical nightmares.  The key is finding a proper solution which is well above my pay grade.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In training I've been told that men run a greater risk of being sexually assaulted than females because its about power.
> 
> Unless we're talking statically because more men deploy than women I really don't believe person for person men run a greater risk. I think women are generally way more at risk.


If you can without giving away secrets, what kind of sources did the trainers use to back that up?  I can _hardly_ say I'm widely read, but this is the first time I've encountered that concept.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I like Dolphin_Hunters approach to working with our allies. Don't like our policy? Don't ask for help.


 :nod:


----------



## Blackadder1916

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Now admittedly I know very little on the subject, but my understanding is a transgendered individual is on quite a bit of absolutely necessary medication?  How does the CAF get said medication into the country country if that country doesn’t allow it?  Even in Iraq and Kuwait everything we bring (with some obvious exceptions for certain units) has to be declared to their customs through detailed manifests etc.  If said country says no to that medication then what’s the option?  Smuggle it illegally?



I readily agree that you know very little on the subject (_my apologies for the dig_), but I will also readily admit that my knowledge of the subject is not much greater.  However by refreshing the few facts I did know and drawing on some long ago experience in acquiring medical equipment and supplies overseas am able to make a cogent comment.

This was one of the guidelines I looked at.
Guidelines and Protocols for Hormone Therapy and Primary Health Care for Trans Clients
https://sherbourne.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Guidelines-and-Protocols-for-Comprehensive-Primary-Care-for-Trans-Clients-2015.pdf

The "medical" treatment of trans individuals (as differentiated from "surgical" treatment) is primarily hormone therapy, either giving masculinizing or feminizing hormones and/or medications that block the natural production of hormones.  There is nothing in either regime that is used solely in trans therapy (though as soon as I post this, someone actually educated in the subject will probably come by and correct my premise).  While there may be gaps in the quality of medical care in some of these countries, especially in terms of womens' health, it would surprise me if the necessary drugs to maintain a transgender soldier were not available in most countries with a reasonable health system, even those that would be opposed to the existence of said individuals.  There is nothing labelled "Taboo - Medicine only for Transgendered Patients" that all those foreign customs officials are scanning manifests in search of.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you can without giving away secrets, what kind of sources did the trainers use to back that up?  I can _hardly_ say I'm widely read, but this is the first time I've encountered that concept.
> :nod:



The same info was passed on, more than once, in briefings I attended before each IMPACT ROTO.  The information was given from the guest instructors from K-town.  I don't recall the sources, if they were given, being questioned....given the nature of the briefing and the SMEs it was taken at face value as credible.

I know someone said "I don't care what the host nation laws are"; from experience, that opinion may change if you're in a place like the Middle East, moving around between locations on the ground and your senses and surroundings (including host nation citizens) let you know that you're "not in Kansas anymore".   :2c:


----------



## blacktriangle

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> moving around between locations on the ground



And that would be your first mistake...  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The same info was passed on, more than once, in briefings I attended *before each IMPACT ROTO* ...


That gives me a bit of geographical context.  I took the stat as being _global_, not local.  Thanks for that.


----------



## Strike

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ...There is nothing in either regime that is used solely in trans therapy (though as soon as I post this, someone actually educated in the subject will probably come by and correct my premise).  While there may be gaps in the quality of medical care in some of these countries, especially in terms of womens' health, it would surprise me if the necessary drugs to maintain a transgender soldier were not available in most countries with a reasonable health system, even those that would be opposed to the existence of said individuals.  There is nothing labelled "Taboo - Medicine only for Transgendered Patients" that all those foreign customs officials are scanning manifests in search of.



I think you hit it there. A woman who has had a hysterectomy or a man who has had prostate cancer may both be on hormones of some level, maybe for the rest of their lives.  But barring any other issues, they'd still be able to deploy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

DetectiveMcNulty said:
			
		

> And that would be your first mistake...  ;D



...I didn't get a vote on those ones though...I did mention "hey we've got a serviceable aircraft eh"...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Strike said:
			
		

> I think you hit it there. A woman who has had a hysterectomy or a man who has had prostate cancer may both be on hormones of some level, maybe for the rest of their lives.  But barring any other issues, they'd still be able to deploy.



I went away with a guy who had to have shots every week on the deployment...it was all arranged, made it's way to the desert and he didn't miss a mission.  Stuff had to be temp controlled and some other stuff;  it wasn't the ideal situation but it worked.


----------



## Xylric

The way I see the subject, human beings are easily abstracted as "meat suits piloted by unique electro-chemical patterns", and as such it's far more effective to look at things from a meritocratic perspective. With the company that I run, for example, the plurality of its staff have some form of neurological divergence - and speaking as a member of that company's board, we honestly have no idea at the full extent of such things, because we only learn as people are willing to disclose. As an example, due to our existence as an entirely digital office, I don't even know the ethnicity of most of the staff. Like sexual identity and orientation, it's completely irrelevant to the skill set and knowledge base a person may possess.

If one can do the job with distinction, without putting one's self or others at undue risk, what other concerns matter?


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I went away with a guy who had to have shots every week on the deployment...it was all arranged, made it's way to the desert and he didn't miss a mission.  Stuff had to be temp controlled and some other stuff;  it wasn't the ideal situation but it worked.


Theres obviously huge difference in jobs. Expecting the same accommodation for an infantry soldier in a PSS in Afghanistan is probably not going to happen.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Theres obviously huge difference in jobs. Expecting the same accommodation for an infantry soldier in a PSS in Afghanistan is probably not going to happen.



Nope, not likely.  It will work for some, not for others.  Sailing might also be a challenge.

But, being that we probably have as many AVN Techs in the CAF (reg force) as we do infanteers, it might work for a large majority of folks who have jobs 'inside the wire' or, atleast, are back inside the wire when the sun sets.


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Nope, not likely.  It will work for some, not for others.  Sailing might also be a challenge.
> 
> But, being that we probably have as many AVN Techs in the CAF (reg force) as we do infanteers, it might work for a large majority of folks who have jobs 'inside the wire' or, atleast, are back inside the wire when the sun sets.



Yep, concur. I think the lesson here is that the CAF is going to do its absolute best to accommodate, but there are going to be bona fide operational requirements where its not possible, so a transgendered member (or member with medical limitations) is not going to be able to deploy to location X or be a member of trade Y.


----------



## Blackadder1916

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yep, concur. I think the lesson here is that the CAF is going to do its absolute best to accommodate, but there are going to be bona fide operational requirements where its not possible, so a transgendered member (or member with medical limitations) is not going to be able to deploy to location X or be a member of trade Y.



Maybe my impression is wrong, but I get the sense that some believe that a transgendered individual would have so many MELs that it is the norm that they would (or should) be undeployable.  What unique medical (as opposed to adm, social and employment) accommodations do you imagine are required?  Are you thinking that they need mandatory intensive medical surveillance?  While it may be true during the early stages of transition once that is completed, it seems (according to what I've reviewed) that a standard monitoring regime of every 6 months or even every 12 months is adequate.  Seeing a primary care physician once every year and having some blood work done is no more onerous than that of aircrew, women or those over a certain age.  Maybe the need to take medication on a regular basis?  Yes they do, but so do a lot of other people who deploy, some for rather routine things (like birth control or other gynecological issues) or prophylaxis (malaria).  Depending on the medication regime selected for the individual there may be a requirement for weekly injections but that doesn't necessarily mean the individual has to attend a medical facility on those occasions.  Even if the trans person is hesitant to inject themselves, the CF deploys medical elements in support of missions at a much greater capability than in the days of yore when I first deployed operationally.  And since it was mentioned previously that "sailing" might be a problem, that would likely be no problem since warships have integral medical spaces and staff.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And since it was mentioned previously that "sailing" might be a problem, that would likely be no problem since warships have integral medical spaces and staff.



That was me.  I believe CPFs have PAs, but not MOs?  I'm not sure how the medical side of this topic functions, but I am sure grateful to people who are contributing in an educational sense - I for appreciate it.

On the sailing side, if medical is not a hurtle, would port visits potentially be?  I don't know what ports are usual visits, what countries believe this topic is a legal one vice a social one.


----------



## PuckChaser

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Maybe my impression is wrong, but I get the sense that some believe that a transgendered individual would have so many MELs that it is the norm that they would (or should) be undeployable.  What unique medical (as opposed to adm, social and employment) accommodations do you imagine are required?  Are you thinking that they need mandatory intensive medical surveillance?  While it may be true during the early stages of transition once that is completed, it seems (according to what I've reviewed) that a standard monitoring regime of every 6 months or even every 12 months is adequate.  Seeing a primary care physician once every year and having some blood work done is no more onerous than that of aircrew, women or those over a certain age.  Maybe the need to take medication on a regular basis?  Yes they do, but so do a lot of other people who deploy, some for rather routine things (like birth control or other gynecological issues) or prophylaxis (malaria).  Depending on the medication regime selected for the individual there may be a requirement for weekly injections but that doesn't necessarily mean the individual has to attend a medical facility on those occasions.  Even if the trans person is hesitant to inject themselves, the CF deploys medical elements in support of missions at a much greater capability than in the days of yore when I first deployed operationally.  And since it was mentioned previously that "sailing" might be a problem, that would likely be no problem since warships have integral medical spaces and staff.



I won't speak for EITS, but I know I was only speaking to the specifics of daily/weekly drug injections that might not be possible in austere environments (especially if something needs refrigeration).


----------



## Lumber

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That was me.  I believe CPFs have PAs, but not MOs?  I'm not sure how the medical side of this topic functions, but I am sure grateful to people who are contributing in an educational sense - I for appreciate it.
> 
> On the sailing side, if medical is not a hurtle, would port visits potentially be?  I don't know what ports are usual visits, what countries believe this topic is a legal one vice a social one.



I've never heard of a ship going to Brunei, but there are other "common" ports that could be an issue for anyone in the LGBTQ community, including Dubai, Kuwait City, Doha, Salalah and Muscat (i.e. all middle eastern ports). 

That being said, you're not suppose to flaunt your sexuality in those countries regardless of your gender identity or sexuality, so as long as you are being safe and respecting local customs, I don't see any reason why a trans person should be any less safe than the rest of the crew in these ports.

That being said, if I was in a leadership position aboard a ship visiting one of the ports where homosexuality was punishable by death, I would most definitely include that in my "sex, drugs and rock&roll" brief to the crew before they went ashore. 

We don't ban civilian trans Canadians from travelling to these countries, why should we ban military trans Canadians from visiting these countries during port visits? Life's full of risks and these are adults; they can stay aboard if they feel it's too risky.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I've been to Brunei, on a Frigate.

It is a very strange place.


----------



## austinjames

so i've found a ton of information about transitioning AFTER joining the military but i've yet to find anyone's experience about being in basic training after you've transitioned. does anyone have any experience of going to basic training as a trans man (or woman works too)?


----------



## AshleyMarie34

Hello everyone. I heard of this site a while ago but just now decided to join in hopes of hearing some experiences , voicing concerns and questions of my own and perhaps even make a friend or two! Anyway..

I am a 25 year old transgender woman. For years I had wanted to join the military  but had to put it off mainly due to my desire to have all my treatments complete so if I am hired to join I can do so without any "loose ends" . Joining the military as said has been a dream of mine, and my application is beginning. I don't see myself however getting in until 2020, as my surgery is a few months away as it is.

I suppose my main questions are:

- basic training, what is it like? How long is it? Is it true you go out on the field for like a week straight running on no more than 5 hours of sleep that entire week? I heard ther was one super intense week of training, whereas every other day of the week lights out is 2300-0500. And how gruelling is the exercise?

- postings, after basic do they give you a choice in your posting . I realize you go wherever needed but do they give you a choice of bases that your trade is needing or do they  just pack you up wherever ?

- deployment, after I join and finish my trade training is the possibility of being deployed good? Because I would be the in category of wanting to be in the position of being deployed 

-advancement, I known there is a number of ranks in the forces and it takes time to rise up. I just wonder how you can do so? See I know a girl who's been in for 10 years and she's a Captian, my mothers husband has been in since 2001 and is still a Corporal. It just seems odd in a way and maybe someone could educate me here and that.

I'm sure I will have more question pop into my head at some point, but in the mean time thank you to those who are reading! It means a lot and I look forward hearing from you 🇨🇦  ;D


----------



## AshleyMarie34

I was looking for my original post and it was moved to this thread. Didn't even realize there was a thread already for this so if my above post looks redundant that is why. Sweet stuff tho!


----------



## Loachman

Welcome to Army.ca, AshleyMarie34.

There's a thread not only for this, but for almost any other topic as well.

Best advice: Start reading through pertinent existing threads. You'll get far more out of doing that. If, after doing some decent research, you still cannot find an answer, somebody with some experience in that area will most likely do his or her best to provide you with one.


----------



## lohocard

austinjames said:
			
		

> so i've found a ton of information about transitioning AFTER joining the military but i've yet to find anyone's experience about being in basic training after you've transitioned. does anyone have any experience of going to basic training as a trans man (or woman works too)?



Read my posts above in this thread ^ I am a trans man and went to basic after i transitioned. PM if you need to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AshleyMarie34

Hello everyone. I have decided im going join the forces and would appreciate any advice that could be beneficial to a successful career in the military. 

A small background story. I am 25, grew up in a military household so I have a decent idea of what I'm getting myself into as opposed to no knowledge. I am well versed in moving from base to base too. I am also MtF transgender. I should be due for surgery late summer and plan to recover for the next few months after and hope to get my military process in a proper swing come new year.  

I realize that basic training is very laborious so I am beginning a new exercise routine. For now I plan to take it slower but by time of my joining, if accepted I hope to be able to do daily reps of sit ups, push up, squats to exceed well above the minimal requirements and well before training day 1 so I can be in shape for the exercises. That also includes the running requirements. I have also been told that sleep is restricted to shorter hours then most people in civilian life would enjoy so I am going to tinker with trying to go 5 hours of sleep for a while before basic so I can learn how to handle that , or have a better handling.

I realize that guns are a thing of the military, I mean how else is one going to fight off arses. That said I have some knowledge of guns as when I used to live in British Columbia as a kid I used to go to the shooting range with my father. It's been a few years since I last fired. I'm going to guess it will be well worth my time to invest going to a range. This may sound like a silly question but is there also a way of learning how to shoot precisely and accurately acceptable to standards?

Now if you're still reading (and thank you to those who are) you'll notice I admitted I am transgender. I realize being trans is not a red light to join as it can be elsewhere in the world. That said would anyone here at all have the slightest knowledge over how this could impact me in some other way? Again I don't plan to go to basic till next year, a while after surgery. I realize the military does provide coverage which is great but I had planned to get surgery before joining that way it wouldn't effect my learning of basic plus trade training (in addition to sooner peace). That said I will be on estrogen tablets for life. 

Anyways thanks everyone and hope to hear back soon!


----------



## dangerboy

AshleyMarie34 said:
			
		

> This may sound like a silly question but is there also a way of learning how to shoot precisely and accurately acceptable to standards?



I would recommend not doing this. The CAF has lots of experience teaching people that have no experience how to use rifles and shoot, just follow your instructors points while you are on your basic course. It is harder to unlearn something once you have been taught something, and you might learn different drills/techniques which are different from the CAFs (not wrong drills just different).


----------



## AshleyMarie34

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I would recommend not doing this. The CAF has lots of experience teaching people that have no experience how to use rifles and shoot, just follow your instructors points while you are on your basic course. It is harder to unlearn something once you have been taught something, and you might learn different drills/techniques which are different from the CAFs (not wrong drills just different).



Ok thanks for the heads up! I wasn't sure if I should or not but I puttered around with the idea. I want to be as prepared as possible, including doing exercises on my own initiative before basic but not so prepared that I end up doing it not the right way and have to relearn from scratch


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=AshleyMarie34]

Now if you're still reading (and thank you to those who are) you'll notice I admitted I am transgender. I realize being trans is not a red light to join as it can be elsewhere in the world. That said would anyone here at all have the slightest knowledge over how this could impact me in some other way? Again I don't plan to go to basic till next year, a while after surgery. I realize the military does provide coverage which is great but I had planned to get surgery before joining that way it wouldn't effect my learning of basic plus trade training (in addition to sooner peace). That said I will be on estrogen tablets for life. 
[/quote]

Dangerboy hit the bullet on the primer (har har). Admirable that you want to get training before you get training but don't. 

As for being Transgender if you read through this thread you'll see that in some cases other soldiers will have no idea and you can successfully hide it if that's your thing.
No one should ever make fun or you or call you names, but I'm going to say it will happen. I'd suggest having thick skin (within reason) will help.


----------



## AshleyMarie34

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Dangerboy hit the bullet on the primer (har har). Admirable that you want to get training before you get training but don't.
> 
> As for being Transgender if you read through this thread you'll see that in some cases other soldiers will have no idea and you can successfully hide it if that's your thing.
> No one should ever make fun or you or call you names, but I'm going to say it will happen. I'd suggest having thick skin (within reason) will help.



Thank you very much! I may go what they call as stealth (where I do not tell anyone/ out myself) or may not. It's hard to say because even in my day to day life, outside of the people I have on my social media I don't really ever tell people about my situation. Like I don't hide it as I not ashamed of it, but I don't advertise it as I don't see a reason to have everyone I know know, if that makes sense.

As for some of the negative people I am not too phased by it as I couldn't care what others have to think about my life. Some people will never get along and even if no one knew about that part someone could still find some reason not to like me (like how I talk or what I like, etc) it's annoying, and transphobic nonsense adds that double whammy of it all and has the potential to escalade ones dislike even more so than the others reasons I listed, but people talking trash is generally something I brush off my shoulder, simply put screw em


----------



## kratz

AshleyMarie34,

The easiest way to learn from this site is to use this google search method:    "site:navy.ca    ***********  "

When you use the above method for BMQ topics, you will discover the concept "being the grey man".
It's not being stealth....it's simply fitting in so well that staff do not easily pick you because you always stand out.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

kratz said:
			
		

> AshleyMarie34,
> 
> The easiest way to learn from this site is to use this google search method:    "site:navy.ca    ***********  "
> 
> When you use the above method for BMQ topics, you will discover the concept "being the grey man".
> It's not being stealth....it's simply fitting in so well that staff do not easily pick you because you always stand out.



To add to Kratz’s post, not everyone can be the grey man though. It’s okay to stand out, just make sure it’s for positive reasons and not negative ones.

In my experience, you really shouldn’t have any issues though. There was never a point where I was worried about someone seeing me naked. The bathrooms in both blue and green sector are either wholly private, or each individual shower area also has its own curtain/door to offer privacy from those using the sink area and toilets are also enclosed. Not only is no one actually allowed to be moving about their floors/common areas unclothed, but there’s simply never a reason to, period. You bring your stuff to and from the shower area/bathrooms with you.

Staff announces themselves when they enter the floor doors and if anyone is in any state of undress they’ll pause until it’s suitable to walk through. They also don’t walk into the bathrooms during patrols on occupied floors unless there’s an identified emergency. (Usually someone will just yell “I’m changing” or whatever, and they’ll wait.)

(For the most part) In the field, yes, there’s a much lesser expectancy of privacy. But generally, even if something does occur, at that point there’s decent enough platoon cohesion that no one will care. At that point everyone’s leaning on each other decently-well and everyone has the same-end goal in mind. A certain level of respect (even if certain people don’t get along individually) has developed and they just don’t care. All they care about is graduating. 

Edit to add: During PT changing times, there are also stalls in the locker rooms if you don’t want to dress/undress openly. There’s always usually a couple who prefer to dart in there quickly. But everyone’s pretty much just focused on themselves while trying to get their shit altogether and pulling on clothes and whatnot over still-damp skin.


----------



## glxsskingdxm

What is it like to enrol as someone who has already transitioned with hormones? Did any of you have hold ups in medical, or not being able to continue HRT in basic?


----------



## Jarnhamar

This is obviously American but might offer relevant reading.



Retired Navy SEAL Chris Beck, who came out as trans, announces detransition: ‘destroyed my life’  



> A retired Navy SEAL who became famous nearly 10 years ago after coming out as transgender announced he is detransitioning and called on Americans to “wake up” about how transgender health services are hurting children.
> 
> “Everything you see on CNN with my face, do not even believe a word of it,” Chris Beck, formerly known as Kristin Beck, told conservative influencer Robby Starbuck in an interview published earlier this month. “Everything that happened to me for the last ten years destroyed my life. I destroyed my life. I’m not a victim. I did this to myself, but I had help.”


----------

