It can be easy to forget the time before the 2011 repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. As we’re now over a decade into allowing lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) servicemembers to serve openly and a year and half out from the lifting of the ban on transgender people, there are countless stories of folx enduring the hard realities of homophobia and transphobia. Before DADT’s repeal, it was not uncommon to find threads of attacks and abuse woven into the fabric of our nation’s fighting forces. Unfortunately, there a more unknown stories than those we’ve come to learn about even now. But those we’ve seen come to light paint a picture of a time when we absolutely HAD to serve and suffer in silence or face humiliation and harm to our bodies, hearts, and minds. Today marks the tragic anniversary of one such story, a light snuffed out: the death of Army PFC Barry Winchell.
Transgender people have served in all branches of the U.S. military and are a rich part of history. Here are some notable Veterans:
Kristin Beck Beck served 20 years in the U.S. Navy Seals where she was a member of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group and the special counter-terrorism unit SEAL Team Six. For her service, Beck was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat Distinguishing Service, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Purple Heart. She co-wrote the book Warrior Princess, and was the subject of the documentary Lady Valor.
Allyson Robinson Robinson graduate West Point with a degree in physics in 1994. She served in the U.S. Army until 1999, after which she became an ordained Baptist minister. She has held prominent leadership positions in the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and OutServe-SLDN.
Monica Helms Helms served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1978. She is the creator of the Transgender Pride Flag, and is the founder of the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA). In 2004, she was elected as a delegate in the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston Massachusetts, making her the first trans person from Georgia to be elected to a DNC Convention.
Shane Ortega Ortega served in both the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines. He is often credited as the first openly transgender service member. He served in 3 hostile fire combat tours, and executed over 400 combat missions.
Jamie Shupe Shupe served in the U.S. Army as a tank mechanic. Shaupe, who in the press has stated a preference for they/them pronouns, was the first person in the U.S. to win the right to list a non-binary gender on their driver’s license, obtained through the state of Oregon.
Christine Jorgensen Jorgensen served in the U.S. Army and is credited as being the first person in the U.S. to become widely known for having gender affirming surgery. She worked as an actress and nightclub singer, and remained a spokesperson for transgender people throughout much of her life.
Renée Richards Richards served in the U.S. Navy after completing a degree at Yale University and earning a medical degree from the Rochester School of Medicine. While in the Navy, Richards won both the singles and doubles at the All Navy Championship. After transition, Richards famously won a case against the United States Tennis Association, which was found to have discriminated against her by not allowing her to play in the U.S. Open as a woman. Richards went on to have a successful tennis career before retiring to return to medical practice.
Fallon Fox Fox served in the U.S. Navy as an operations specialist on the USS Enterprise. She later became a mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter, and after two professional fights, came out publicly as transgender in 2013. In coming out, she became the first openly transgender athlete in MMA history.
Janae Kroc Janae served in the U.S. Marines from 1991-1995 during which she was selected for Presidential Security duty under President Bill Clinton, She provided security for some of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and officers at the Pentagon from 1992-1994. From 2004-2005, she was assigned to the security force at the Presidential retreat at Camp David. Kroc began power lifting in 1991 after joining the Marines, and went on to win a world championship and become a world record holder in powerlifting.
Amanda Simpson Simpson served at the Pentagon as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy. While Simpson is a civilian employee, her position in the Pentagon equate to that of a two-star general. Simpson was the first openly transgender person to hold a leadership role in the Pentagon.
DoD spokesman Charles Summers stated that the proposed policy would allow transgender troops currently serving to stay in and those “who’ve had medical service for gender dysphoria” would not be allowed to enlist.
Under the proposed policy, no one may be denied entry into the military or involuntarily discharged based solely on gender identity. However, a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, a medical condition requiring long-term treatment, can be disqualifying.
In January, a three-judge federal appeals court unanimously concluded that it was factually incorrect to describe the proposed policy as a blanket ban on service by transgender persons.
Lt. Col. Joe Buccino, Spokesman for Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan
The then-President announced the transgender ban on Twitter in July 2017.
A 2016 Rand Corp. study found that transgender people serving in the military would have a minimal impact on readiness.
Two years ago today, a Maryland federal judge issued a six-page decision lifting an order against the previous administration’s ban on transgender military service. This was the 3rd order lifted since January 2019 when the Supreme Court lifted two other orders issued by judges in the Ninth Circuit. One other order remained in place effectively keeping openly transgender service in place for the time being.
President Bill Clinton Holds Press Conference on Lifting the Ban on Homosexuals Serving in the Military
Transcript
The President: “Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’m sorry, we had a last-minute delay occasioned by another issue, not this one. The debate over whether to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military has, to put it mildly, sparked a great deal of interest over the last few days. Today, as you know, I have reached an agreement, at least with Senator Nunn and Senator Mitchell, about how we will proceed in the next few days. But first I would like to explain what I believe about this issue and why, and what I have decided to do after a long conversation, and a very good one, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and discussions with several Members of Congress.
“The issue is not whether there should be homosexuals in the military. Everyone concedes that there are. The issue is whether men and women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status. And I believe they should not.
“The principle on which I base this position is this: I believe that American citizens who want to serve their country should be able to do so unless their conduct disqualifies them from doing so. Military life is fundamentally different from civilian society; it necessarily has a different and stricter code of conduct, even a different code of justice. Nonetheless, individuals who are prepared to accept all necessary restrictions on their behavior, many of which would be intolerable in civilian society, should be able to serve their country honorably and we I have asked the Secretary of Defense to submit by July the 15th a draft Executive order, after full consultation with military and congressional leaders and concerned individuals outside of the Government, which would end the present policy of the exclusion from military service solely on the basis of sexual orientation and at the same time establish rigorous standards regarding sexual conduct to be applied to all military personnel.
“This draft order will be accompanied by a study conducted during the next 6 months on the real, practical problems that would be involved in this revision of policy, so that we will have a practical, realistic approach consistent with the high standards of combat effectiveness and unit cohesion that our armed services must maintain. I agree with the Joint Chiefs that the highest standards of conduct must be required. The change cannot and should not be accomplished overnight. It does require extensive consultation with the Joint Chiefs, experts in the Congress and in the legal community, joined by my administration and others. We’ve consulted closely to date and will do so in the future. During that process, interim measures will be placed into effect which, I hope, again, sharpen the focus of this debate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have agreed to remove the question regarding one’s sexual orientation from future versions of the enlistment application, and it will not be asked in the interim.
“We also all agree that a very high standard of conduct can and must be applied. So the single area of disagreement is this: Should someone be able to serve their country in uniform if they say they are homosexuals, but they do nothing which violates the code of conduct or undermines unit cohesion or morale, apart from that statement? That is what all the furor of the last few days has been about. And the practical and not insignificant issues raised by that issue are what will be studied in the next 6 months.
“Through this period ending July 15th, the Department of Justice will seek continuances in pending court cases involving reinstatement. And administrative separation under current Department of Defense policies based on status alone will be stayed pending completion of this review. The final discharge in cases based only on status will be suspended until the President has an opportunity to review and act upon the final recommendations of the Secretary of Defense with respect to the current policy. In the meantime, a member whose discharge has been suspended by the Attorney General will be separated from active duty and placed in standby reserve until the final report of the Secretary of Defense and the final action of the President. This is the agreement that I have reached with Senator Nunn and Senator Mitchell.
“During this review process, I will work with the Congress. And I believe the compromise announced today by the Senators and by me shows that we can work together to end the gridlock that has plagued our city for too long.
“This compromise is not everything I would have hoped for or everything that I have stood for, but it is plainly a substantial step in the right direction. And it will allow us to move forward on other terribly important issues affecting far more Americans.
“My administration came to this city with a mission to bring critical issues of reform and renewal and economic revitalization to the public debate, issues that are central to the lives of all Americans. We are working on an economic reform agenda that will begin with an address to the joint session of Congress on February 17th. In the coming months the White House Task Force on Health Care, chaired by the First Lady, will complete work on a comprehensive health care reform proposal to be submitted to Congress within 100 days of the commencement of this administration. We will be designing a system of national service to begin a season of service in which our Nation’s unmet needs are addressed and we provide more young people the opportunity to go to college. We will be proposing comprehensive welfare reform legislation and other important initiatives.
“I applaud the work that has been done in the last 2 or 3 days by Senator Nunn, Senator Mitchell, and others to enable us to move forward on a principle that is important to me without shutting the Government down and running the risk of not even addressing the family and medical leave issue, which is so important to America’s families, before Congress goes into its recess. I am looking forward to getting on with this issue over the next 6 months and with these other issues which were so central to the campaign and, far more importantly, are so important to the lives of all the American people.”
Q. “Mr. President, yesterday a Federal court in California said that the military ban on homosexuals was unconstitutional. Will you direct the Navy and the Justice Department not to appeal that decision? And how does that ruling strengthen your hand in this case?”
The President. “Well, it makes one point. I think it strengthens my hand, if you will, in two ways. One, I agree with the principle embodied in the case. I have not read the opinion, but as I understand it, the opinion draws the distinction that I seek to draw between conduct and status. And secondly, it makes the practical point I have been making all along, which is that there is not insignificant chance that this matter would ultimately be resolved in the courts in a way that would open admission into the military without the opportunity to deal with this whole range of practical issues, which everyone who has ever thought about it or talked it through concedes are there. So I think it can—it strengthens my hand on the principle as well as on the process.”
Q. “Mr. President, there’s a glass of water there, by the way, while I ask the question. Do you think, since you promised during the campaign—your literature put out a very clear statement: lift the ban on homosexuals in the military immediately—do you think you didn’t think through these practical problems? What have you learned from this experience in dealing with powerful members of the Senate and the Joint Chiefs? And how much of a problem is this for you to accept a compromise which doesn’t meet your real goals?”
The President. “Well, I haven’t given up on my real goals. I think this is a dramatic step forward. Normally, in the history of civil rights advancements, Presidents have not necessarily been in the forefront in the beginning. So I think the fact that we actually have the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreeing that it’s time to take this question off the enlistment form, that there ought to be a serious examination of how this would be done, even though they haven’t agreed that it should be done; that the Senate, if they vote for the motion advocated by Senators Nunn and Mitchell, will agree; Senators who don’t agree that the policy should be changed are agreeing that we ought to have a chance to work through this for 6 months and persuade them of that, I think, is very, very significant. Now, I would remind you that any President’s Executive order can be overturned by an act of Congress. The President can then veto the act of Congress and try to have his veto sustained if the act stands on its own as a simple issue that could always be vetoed. But I always knew that there was a chance that Congress would disagree with my position. I can only tell you that I still think I’m right; I feel comfortable about the way we have done this; and I’m going to maintain the commitment that I have.”
Q. “But do you think that you hadn’t examined the practical problems—”
Q. “Sir, I just wonder, do you think in retrospect that—obviously, you didn’t intend the first week—I’m sorry, you want to—”
The President. “No, I had always planned to allow some period of time during which policies would be developed to deal with what I think are the significant practical problems. This, in effect, may reverse the process over what I intended to do, but there has to be a time in which these issues, these practical issues are developed and policies are developed to deal with them.”
Q. “Obviously, you didn’t intend the first week of your administration, given your promise to have the laser focus on the economy, to be seen around the country as military gay rights week. I wonder if in retrospect you think you could have done things differently to have avoided that happening?”
The President. “I don’t know how I could have done that. The Joint Chiefs asked for a meeting about a number of issues, in which this was only one. We spent a lot of time talking about other things. This issue was not put forward in this context by me; it was put forward by those in the United States Senate who sought to make it an issue early on. And I don’t know how I could have stopped them from doing that.”
Q. “You don’t think that in making the promise and then in promising to follow through on it early that you might have given rise to this, do you, sir?”
The President. “Well, I think it was pretty clear to me that we were talking about some sort of 6-month process days and days ago. And the people who wanted it debated now were not deterred by that, and probably a lot of them won’t be deterred by the agreement announced today. I think that we must—they have the perfect right to do this. But the timing of this whole issue was clearly forced by the people in the Senate who were opposed to any change of the policy no matter what the facts are. And I think that was their right to do, but they control the timing of this, not me.”
Q. “Two questions. First of all, just to make sure that we’re clear on this: July 15th this happens, period, regardless of what comes out at these hearings, is that correct? The ban will be issued, or will be lifted, rather?”
The President. “That is my position. My position is that I still embrace the principle, and I think it should be done. The position of those who are opposed to me is that they think that the problems will be so overwhelming everybody with good sense will change their position. I don’t expect to do that.”
Q. “So you definitely expect to do it. And secondly—”
The President. “I don’t expect to change my position, no.”
Q. “What do you think is going to happen in the military? There have been all sorts of dire predictions of violence, of mass comings out, whatever. What do you think the impact of this is going to be, practically?”
The President. “For one thing, I think if you look at the last 10 years of experience here, according to the reports we have, this country spent $500 million in tax dollars to separate something under 16,500 homosexuals from the service and has dealt with complaints, at least, of sexual abuse, heterosexual abuse, largely against women, far greater volumes. But during this period, we have plainly had the best educated, best trained, most cohesive military force in the history of the United States. And everybody, ask anybody, and the Joint Chiefs will tell you that.
“They agreed that we should stop asking the question. This single thing that is dividing people on this debate, I want to make it very clear that this is a very narrow issue. It is whether a person, in the absence of any other disqualifying conduct, can simply say that he or she is homosexual and stay in the service. I do not expect that to spark this kind of problem. And I certainly think in the next 6 months, as people start to work it through and talk it through, a lot of legitimate, practical issues will be raised and dealt with in a more rational environment that is less charged. That is certainly what I hope will happen. Thank you.”
Earlier this week, President Biden signed an executive order reversing the U.S military’s ban on transgender people serving.
Sacramento’s FOX 40 interviewed Joanna Michaels, a local transgender Veteran who served in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam War, on the news of the reversal. If the video doesn’t play, check out the link above.
It’s been one day since President Joe Biden has removed a ban on transgender people joining and serving in the military.
The new policy prohibits any service member from being forced out of the military based on gender identity. The military must also re-examine the records of service members who were discharged or denied reenlistment due to gender identity under the previous policy.
The move is a weight lifted for more than one million Americans who identify as transgender, some of whom feel an intense calling to pledge themselves to this country and protect it.
Joanna Michaels was one of those Americans back when the Vietnam War raged. She served as a survival instructor for the Air Force from 1967 to 1974.
Sonseeahray spoke to Joanna about her story and what the new policy means to the LGBTQ+ community.
DoD Directive 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, Implemented
The directive contained language addressing homosexuality in the military stating, “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” The directive would serve as a precursor to the 1993 policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Additional language stated that homosexuality “impairs the accomplishment of the military mission” and adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale.”
The Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit denies a December 29, 2010 request from the federal government to put the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America case on hold. The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) filed their opposition to the government’s motion on January 10, 2011 and the Ninth Circuit allowed the government additional time to prepare its briefing.
Tiered Plan for DADT Repeal Briefed. Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley and Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman General James Cartwright briefed reporters on a plan for implementing the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Laid out was a three-tiered plan: (1) Implementing or Changing Policies; (2) Training Changes; and (3) Training of the Actual Force.
The Marine Corps Releases Video Outlining the Way Forward After DADT Repeal. In the Senate Armed Services Committee’s hearing on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos, testified that Marines would lead the way in implementation of a repeal. Amos released the video below describing the way forward for the Corps post-repeal.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. All Americans who are qualified to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States (“Armed Forces”) should be able to serve. The All-Volunteer Force thrives when it is composed of diverse Americans who can meet the rigorous standards for military service, and an inclusive military strengthens our national security.
It is my conviction as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces that gender identity should not be a bar to military service. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military does not have any meaningful negative impact on the Armed Forces. To that end, in 2016, a meticulous, comprehensive study requested by the Department of Defense found that enabling transgender individuals to serve openly in the United States military would have only a minimal impact on military readiness and healthcare costs. The study also concluded that open transgender service has had no significant impact on operational effectiveness or unit cohesion in foreign militaries.
On the basis of this information, the Secretary of Defense concluded in 2016 that permitting transgender individuals to serve openly in the military was consistent with military readiness and with strength through diversity, such that transgender service members who could meet the required standards and procedures should be permitted to serve openly. The Secretary of Defense also concluded that it was appropriate to create a process that would enable service members to take steps to transition gender while serving.
The previous administration chose to alter that policy to bar transgender persons, in almost all circumstances, from joining the Armed Forces and from being able to take steps to transition gender while serving. Rather than relying on the comprehensive study by a nonpartisan federally funded research center, the previous administration relied on a review that resulted in a policy that set unnecessary barriers to military service. It is my judgment that the Secretary of Defense’s 2016 conclusions remain valid, as further demonstrated by the fact that, in 2018, the then-serving Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Chief of Staff of the Air Force all testified publicly to the Congress that they were not aware of any issues of unit cohesion, disciplinary problems, or issues of morale resulting from open transgender service. A group of former United States Surgeons General, who collectively served under Democratic and Republican Presidents, echoed this point, stating in 2018 that “transgender troops are as medically fit as their non‑transgender peers and that there is no medically valid reason — including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria — to exclude them from military service or to limit their access to medically necessary care.”
Therefore, it shall be the policy of the United States to ensure that all transgender individuals who wish to serve in the United States military and can meet the appropriate standards shall be able to do so openly and free from discrimination.
Sec. 2. Revocation. The Presidential Memorandum of March 23, 2018 (Military Service by Transgender Individuals), is hereby revoked, and the Presidential Memorandum of August 25, 2017 (Military Service by Transgender Individuals), remains revoked.
Sec. 3. Agency Roles and Responsibilities. In furtherance of the policy described in section 1 of this order, I hereby direct the following:
(a) The Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, shall, after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff about how best to implement this policy and consistent with applicable law, take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, regulations, and policies of their respective departments are consistent with this order. These steps shall include establishing a process by which transgender service members may transition gender while serving, along with any further steps that the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security deem appropriate to advance the policy described in section 1 of this order.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall:
(i) immediately prohibit involuntary separations, discharges, and denials of reenlistment or continuation of service on the basis of gender identity or under circumstances relating to their gender identity;
(ii) identify and examine the records of service members who have been involuntarily separated, discharged, or denied reenlistment or continuation of service on the basis of gender identity or under circumstances relating to their gender identity;
(iii) issue guidance to the Secretaries of each military department regarding the correction of the military records of individuals described in subsection (b)(ii) of this section as necessary to remove an injustice, pursuant to section 1552(a) of title 10, United States Code, to the extent permitted by law; and
(iv) direct the Secretaries of each military department to provide supplemental guidance, subject to the approval of the Secretary, to the boards for the correction of military records, instructing such boards on how to review applications for the correction of records of individuals described in subsection (b)(ii) of this section. Where appropriate, the department concerned shall offer such individuals an opportunity to rejoin the military should they wish to do so and meet the current entry standards.
(c) The Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard shall:
(i) immediately prohibit involuntary separations, discharges, and denials of reenlistment or continuation of service, on the basis of gender identity or under circumstances relating to their gender identity;
(ii) identify and examine the records of service members who have been involuntarily separated, discharged, or denied reenlistment or continuation of service, on the basis of gender identity or under circumstances relating to their gender identity;
(iii) issue guidance regarding the correction of the military records of individuals described in subsection (c)(ii) of this section as necessary to remove an injustice, pursuant to section 1552(a) of title 10, United States Code, to the extent permitted by law; and
(iv) provide supplemental guidance to the Board for Correction of Military Records of the Coast Guard, instructing the Board on how to review applications for the correction of records of individuals described in subsection (c)(ii) of this section. Where appropriate, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall offer such individuals an opportunity to rejoin the Coast Guard should they wish to do so and meet the current entry standards.
(d) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to me within 60 days of the date of this order on their progress in implementing the directives in this order and the policy described in section 1 of this order.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 25, 2021.
Per SPART*A’s Twitter: “With the end of the transgender ban imminent, here’s the story of one soldier waiting for his opportunity to serve authentically.”
Small towns are perfect for some, but others find themselves outgrowing their town and seek a way out. Sgt Liam Hodge-Aguirre grew up in Salisbury, Maryland but it never quite felt like home and he was ready to stretch his wings. However, small towns can be hard to escape. He turned to the Army for a helping hand and enlisted in late 2014. His first job was serving as an intelligence Analyst, stationed at Fort Stewart. But similarly to Salisbury, it wasn’t quite the right fit either so he changed career fields in the Army and retrained to become a Physical Therapy Technician. Currently he is stationed at Fort Carson where he works in a Brigade Support Battalion to provide care and treatments for musculoskeletal injuries for solders. Having found a job he loves, he is pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree in Sports Medicine with the aim of applying for a doctorate program as a Physical Therapist. In the meantime, he wants to keep taking care of soldiers and is applying for a spot in a Security Force Assistance Brigade.
THE SACRAMENTO RAINBOW SITREP 