Military May Allow Openly Transgender Personnel

U.S. Military May Allow Openly Transgender Personnel - WSJ

[h=1]Military May Allow Openly Transgender Personnel[/h][h=2]Defense secretary says they should be allowed to serve openly as long as they are able to do so[/h]
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration has sent signals in recent days that it is moving toward a decision to allow transgender service members to serve openly in the U.S. military.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said during a visit to Afghanistan that transgender people should be allowed to serve openly as long as they are able to do so. The White House threw its support behind Mr. Carter Monday, saying President Barack Obama supported changing the decades-old policy. Transgender is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from their sex at birth. Military medical standards disqualify openly transgender people from serving, under guidelines that exclude those with certain neurological, vision, learning, behavioral and psychological conditions, among others.
There are over 15,000 transgender troops serving secretly[FONT=Chronicle SSm, serif], a 2014 report by the Palm Center, a research institute that supports ending the ban, estimated. Under Mr. Obama, the military has already integrated openly gay service members into the military ranks—a major social change to the culture of the armed forces. The president backed a congressional repeal of the so-called don’t-ask, don’t-tell law in 2010, signing the repeal in December of that year. Mr. Carter, speaking Sunday at a military town hall meeting in Kandahar, Afghanistan, was asked about transgender enlistees. [/FONT]“I’m very open-minded about…what their personal lives and proclivities are, provided they can do what we need them to do for us. That’s the important criteria. Are they going to be excellent service members?”

Click to expand...

New SecDef signals support for transgender service
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/02/23/white-house-endorses-carter-remarks-transgender-service/

I happen to agree in this regard. My personal views of one's lifestyle are meaningless, the basic question is, can you do the job and do it well? if the answer is yes then theres not much else to discuss. This is the basic concept of how many things should be.

Good move!

Damn that is a lot of trannies.

I'm all in favor of homophobia in the military being addressed, however this made me twitch a little:

There are over 15,000 transgender troops serving secretly

There are 15,000 people who don't identify with their biology. I get it. That's not a problem. Now, how are they supposed to "serve openly"? From my understanding, appearance in the military is dictated by biology. If you are a man, you can't have long hair or have earrings. I understand that these aren't worn by every transgender person, but they are worn by some. Are exceptions supposed to be made because of how a person identifies? What about women, can they wear men's uniforms if they identify as men? As I said earlier, I am all in favor of homophobia in the military being wiped out. I am all in favor of soldiers being allowed to dress as they want at home and wherever. However, there does exist a line where addressing homophobia comes into direct conflict with professionalism. This is one of those instances.

Hatuey said:

I'm all in favor of homophobia in the military being addressed, however this made me twitch a little:

There are over 15,000 transgender troops serving secretly

There are 15,000 people who don't identify with their biology. I get it. That's not a problem. Now, how are they supposed to "serve openly"? From my understanding, appearance in the military is dictated by biology. If you are a man, you can't have long hair or have earrings. I understand that these aren't worn by every transgender person, but they are worn by some. Are exceptions supposed to be made because of how a person identifies? What about women, can they wear men's uniforms if they identify as men? As I said earlier, I am all in favor of homophobia in the military being wiped out. I am all in favor of soldiers being allowed to dress as they want at home and wherever. However, there does exist a line where addressing homophobia comes into direct conflict with professionalism. This is one of those instances.

Click to expand...

My guess is that will simply be for the military to decide based on"ablity to serve" standards.
I do understand what you are saying though 100%. As far as professionalism I personally dont have a concern with that because this should change anything in far as "ability to serve" though I admit 100% I'm no military expert. Im just thinking along they lines of the standards that are not based on biology which there are many involving diving gear, and hazmat/biohazard gear etc etc.

As far as at an official ceremony would an officer (or anybody) be allowed to wear a skirt or pants if typically they were not, who cares really. Again thats for the military IMO just let them serve openly which only means they can admit it without recourse that doesnt mean they get to wear a pink tutu (Stereotypical JOKE) while participating in desert combat

I mean i know we are talking straight opinions here but i doubt they make exceptions in the areas you are talking about that will void perfessilionsim. What did you have in mind?

Hatuey said:

I'm all in favor of homophobia in the military being addressed, however this made me twitch a little:

There are over 15,000 transgender troops serving secretly

There are 15,000 people who don't identify with their biology. I get it. That's not a problem. Now, how are they supposed to "serve openly"? From my understanding, appearance in the military is dictated by biology. If you are a man, you can't have long hair or have earrings. I understand that these aren't worn by every transgender person, but they are worn by some. Are exceptions supposed to be made because of how a person identifies? What about women, can they wear men's uniforms if they identify as men? As I said earlier, I am all in favor of homophobia in the military being wiped out. I am all in favor of soldiers being allowed to dress as they want at home and wherever. However, there does exist a line where addressing homophobia comes into direct conflict with professionalism. This is one of those instances.

Click to expand...

If they identify as a man they'd wear a mans uniform. If they identify as a women they'd wear a women's uniform. I'm not sure what's so unprofessional about that.

As Agent J said, as long as they're doing their jobs, why would it matter.

Nilly said:

If they identify as a man they'd wear a mans uniform. If they identify as a women they'd wear a women's uniform. I'm not sure what's so unprofessional about that.

As Agent J said, as long as they're doing their jobs, why would it matter.

Click to expand...

What if they aren't men? Do they get to use the women's restroom because of their identification? Do women who identify as men get to violate dress codes because of their personal beliefs? If a soldier sexually identifies as a furry fetishist, can they add a tail to their uniform? The point is not to make a slippery slide out of this, the point is to draw a line between personal beliefs and professionalism. DADT was attacked because it violated a soldier's right to engage in whatever sexual beliefs he/she has without being discriminated against. This won't pass because it comes into conflict with policies that affect issues of professionalism.

Hatuey said:

What if they aren't men? Do they get to use the women's restroom because of their identification? Do women who identify as men get to violate dress codes because of their personal beliefs? If a soldier sexually identifies as a furry fetishist, can they add a tail to their uniform? The point is not to make a slippery slide out of this, the point is to draw a line between personal beliefs and professionalism. DADT was attacked because it violated a soldier's right to engage in whatever sexual beliefs he/she has without being discriminated against. This won't pass because it comes into conflict with policies that affect issues of professionalism.

Click to expand...

again what issues of professionalism are you referring too?
a transgendered who is OFFICIALLY transgender as diagnosed by a doctor and has surgery or is taking hormones and is legally a female etc is a female and will conduct thier whole careers as such. Yes they will dress as a woman use women facilities and serve as a woman . . .
that doesn't violate any professionalism.

also not saying YOU would have a problem with it but I always laugh at the idea of the "bathroom" taboo. Not sure why one would care that a transgender man/woman use the bathroom they have transgendered too. Now open showers where everybody can see everything . . maybe but that would go both ways, im guessing the transgender man to femal will be more uncomfortable and be getting starred at 1000% more than them staring at women. Its weird to me. On average if my daughter was younger or even now the last person i worry about in the bathroom with my mother, sisters, girlfriend etc is the transgendered man who is now female.

I think this will easily come to pass because the concerns being high are manufactured ones.
Im not sure what your concern is? Can you be more specific and provide a reality based situation that would be one of large concern or interfere with service (which per the OP would mean they cant do the job therefore they don't get the job, they want it based on ability)

Hatuey said:

What if they aren't men? Do they get to use the women's restroom because of their identification? Do women who identify as men get to violate dress codes because of their personal beliefs? If a soldier sexually identifies as a furry fetishist, can they add a tail to their uniform? The point is not to make a slippery slide out of this, the point is to draw a line between personal beliefs and professionalism. DADT was attacked because it violated a soldier's right to engage in whatever sexual beliefs he/she has without being discriminated against. This won't pass because it comes into conflict with policies that affect issues of professionalism.

Click to expand...

It's really more of an enlistment issue. Much of the military is predominantly southern. When you start allowing stuff like this, it could possibly cause a decline in the men and women from those states who wished to sign-up when they reach the age of requirement. Enlistment into the armed services has been on the decline for many factors for some time now, but as far as I know, what the military makes anyone wear has never been an issue.

chad1389 said:

It's really more of an enlistment issue. Much of the military is predominantly southern. When you start allowing stuff like this, it could possibly cause a decline in the men and women from those states who wished to sign-up when they reach the age of requirement. Enlistment into the armed services has been on the decline for many factors for some time now, but as far as I know, what the military makes anyone wear has never been an issue.

Click to expand...

just a side note to your post

if a person chooses not to enroll in the military because they may come across gays, transgendered, other races, genders religions etc etc my guess would be its best those types of people stay home. The military will be better without them :shrug:

AGENT J said:

just a side note to your post

if a person chooses not to enroll in the military because they may come across gays, transgendered, other races, genders religions etc etc my guess would be its best those types of people stay home. The military will be better without them :shrug:

Click to expand...

True.

Aren't they already able to be open? I don't get how 'gay' didn't just include 'everyone who's not straight'.

??

But the issue with things like bathrooms and clothing - What is it about this that people get all in a tizzy over. It has nothing to do with social norms and gender.

Penis? Use a urinal.
Vagina? Use a toilet so you can do things like change your maxi pad and sit to pee.
Breasts? Wear clothing that's tailored to fit - not like there's a difference between a man's uniform and a women's uniform save for the design to fit body-shape differences. (ie: women in the military don't wear skirts).

*shrug*

Don't like it?
Go start a fashion company and get the **** out of the military, whiny baby.

It's not very complicated yet people really seem determine to make it ****ing complicated.

Aunt Spiker said:

Aren't they already able to be open? I don't get how 'gay' didn't just include 'everyone who's not straight'.

??

But the issue with things like bathrooms and clothing - What is it about this that people get all in a tizzy over. It has nothing to do with social norms and gender.

Penis? Use a urinal.
Vagina? Use a toilet so you can do things like change your maxi pad and sit to pee.
Breasts? Wear clothing that's tailored to fit - not like there's a difference between a man's uniform and a women's uniform save for the design to fit body-shape differences. (ie: women in the military don't wear skirts).

*shrug*

Don't like it?
Go start a fashion company and get the **** out of the military, whiny baby.

It's not very complicated yet people really seem determine to make it ****ing complicated.

Click to expand...

:lamo

that literally made me laugh out loud, good job A.S.!

AGENT J said:

again what issues of professionalism are you referring too?
a transgendered who is OFFICIALLY transgender as diagnosed by a doctor and has surgery or is taking hormones and is legally a female etc is a female and will conduct thier whole careers as such. Yes they will dress as a woman use women facilities and serve as a woman . . .
that doesn't violate any professionalism.

also not saying YOU would have a problem with it but I always laugh at the idea of the "bathroom" taboo. Not sure why one would care that a transgender man/woman use the bathroom they have transgendered too. Now open showers where everybody can see everything . . maybe but that would go both ways, im guessing the transgender man to femal will be more uncomfortable and be getting starred at 1000% more than them staring at women. Its weird to me. On average if my daughter was younger or even now the last person i worry about in the bathroom with my mother, sisters, girlfriend etc is the transgendered man who is now female.

I think this will easily come to pass because the concerns being high are manufactured ones.
Im not sure what your concern is? Can you be more specific and provide a reality based situation that would be one of large concern or interfere with service (which per the OP would mean they cant do the job therefore they don't get the job, they want it based on ability)

Click to expand...

Well, for one, our military actually deals with other militaries. What happens when a high ranking military official decides he's going to wear a moustache and dress like a woman during a meeting with Canada's military? What happens when we have a JCS member wanting to dress like a female during a congressional hearing? Nothing? Sorry. That doesn't fly in a world led by alpha male types. They can ignore the fact that the guy standing next to them likes to go home and screw another guy. Hell, they don't even get to know. However, troop morale doesn't hold up well when we're talking about their COs dressing like women and ignoring basic standards because of their own definitions of gender (remember: transgender, it'll be important soon). These are all things which actually reflect the professionalism of our military.

As for your claims:

a transgendered who is OFFICIALLY transgender as diagnosed by a doctor and has surgery or is taking hormones and is legally a female etc is a female and will conduct thier whole careers as such. Yes they will dress as a woman use women facilities and serve as a woman . . .
that doesn't violate any professionalism.

Click to expand...

You really should read the article. Transgender speaks to a perception of one's gender. Transsexual speaks to a person undergoing a surgery or who has already done it. This article discusses transgender people. As such, it discusses people who perceive themselves to not fit under a binary definition of male/female as well as people who enjoy cross dressing etc etc. Why do I say this? The quote you missed in your liberal highlighting:

Defense Secretary Ash Carter said during a visit to Afghanistan that transgender people should be allowed to serve openly as long as they are able to do so.

Click to expand...

Now, you can save yourself the embarrassment of me having explain to you the differences between transsexual and transgender or you can dig deeper so that I can post the many manifestations of GID, and the fact that transgender addresses gender expression (which includes cross dressing). Your choice.

also not saying YOU would have a problem with it but I always laugh at the idea of the "bathroom" taboo.

Click to expand...

There is no bathroom taboo, see: meaning of transgender vs. meaning of transsexual. I have no problem with a transsexual person using the bathroom they have the equipment for. I doubt anybody is comfortable with a man walking into a woman's bathroom because he identifies as a woman (see: definition of transgender) and wears a dress. I also doubt soldiers would feel motivated to take orders from a long haired male captain dressed in a woman's uniform. Again, before you go any further and end up looking silly, look up the definition of transsexual and transgender. It'll amaze you to find out that they're not the same and carry very different implications.

Hatuey said:

Well, for one, our military actually deals with other militaries. What happens when a high ranking military official decides he's going to wear a moustache and dress like a woman during a meeting with Canada's military? What happens when we have a JCS member wanting to dress like a female during a congressional hearing? Nothing? Sorry. That doesn't fly in a world led by alpha male types. They can ignore the fact that the guy standing next to them likes to go home and screw another guy. Hell, they don't even get to know. However, troop morale doesn't hold up well when we're talking about their COs dressing like women and ignoring basic standards because of their own definitions of gender (remember: transgender, it'll be important soon). These are all things which actually reflect the professionalism of our military.

As for your claims:



You really should read the article. Transgender speaks to a perception of one's gender. Transsexual speaks to a person undergoing a surgery or who has already done it. This article discusses transgender people. As such, it discusses people who perceive themselves to not fit under a binary definition of male/female as well as people who enjoy cross dressing etc etc. Why do I say this? The quote you missed in your liberal highlighting:



Now, you can save yourself the embarrassment of me having explain to you the differences between transsexual and transgender or you can dig deeper so that I can post the many manifestations of GID, and the fact that transgender addresses gender expression (which includes cross dressing). Your choice.



There is no bathroom taboo, see: meaning of transgender vs. meaning of transsexual. I have no problem with a transsexual person using the bathroom they have the equipment for. I doubt anybody is comfortable with a man walking into a woman's bathroom because he identifies as a woman (see: definition of transgender) and wears a dress. I also doubt soldiers would feel motivated to take orders from a long haired male captain dressed in a woman's uniform. Again, before you go any further and end up looking silly, look up the definition of transsexual and transgender. It'll amaze you to find out that they're not the same and carry very different implications.

Click to expand...

:lamo

holy **** thats a lot of illogical hostile ranting you just made up and claimed i don't get it, wow talk about strawman and embarrassment, who are you having this conversation with????. Im WELL aware of the difference and still see ZERO concerns over this as the military already has standards to address attire but if the military sees fit to change something they are free too. Next time simply ask me if i understand the differences instead of guessing and just making stuff up youll have better success in the witchhunt and strawmen. BUT I see your issue now though, you feel that the military is just going to throw its current regulations out the window and just let people do whatever they want, holy cow all of a sudden "cross dressing" allows people to do what ever lol well when that happens you let me know.

AGENT J said:

U.S. Military May Allow Openly Transgender Personnel - WSJ


New SecDef signals support for transgender service
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/02/23/white-house-endorses-carter-remarks-transgender-service/

I happen to agree in this regard. My personal views of one's lifestyle are meaningless, the basic question is, can you do the job and do it well? if the answer is yes then theres not much else to discuss. This is the basic concept of how many things should be.

Good move!

Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that the distinction between male and female soldiers should be blurred to the greatest degree anyway, and so I support openly transgender people serving.

Hatuey said:

I'm all in favor of homophobia in the military being addressed, however this made me twitch a little:

There are over 15,000 transgender troops serving secretly

There are 15,000 people who don't identify with their biology. I get it. That's not a problem. Now, how are they supposed to "serve openly"? From my understanding, appearance in the military is dictated by biology. If you are a man, you can't have long hair or have earrings. I understand that these aren't worn by every transgender person, but they are worn by some. Are exceptions supposed to be made because of how a person identifies? What about women, can they wear men's uniforms if they identify as men? As I said earlier, I am all in favor of homophobia in the military being wiped out. I am all in favor of soldiers being allowed to dress as they want at home and wherever. However, there does exist a line where addressing homophobia comes into direct conflict with professionalism. This is one of those instances.

Click to expand...

IMO there shouldn't be male and femail uniforms. A cut more accomidating to the sex's form is one thing, but skirts vs slacks shouldn't exist. A soldier is a soldier is a soldier. Your race is American, your color is green, your scripture is the constitution, your sexual preference is killer, your political views are your orders.

AGENT J said:

:lamo

holy **** thats a lot of illogical hostile ranting you just made up and claimed i don't get it, wow talk about strawman and embarrassment, who are you having this conversation with????. Im WELL aware of the difference

Click to expand...

Let's start with this. Apparently, you are not aware of the differences as you seem to think that there is such a thing as "official transgender". Agent J, do you know what defines somebody who is transgender? I'll give you a clue, it's not necessarily somebody who has taken any sort of medications or even seen a doctor. That alone tells me you really don't know what you're discussing here.

and still see ZERO concerns over this as the military already has standards to address attire but if the military sees fit to change something they are free too.

Click to expand...

And they are free to not change it. Their dress code concerns the military. How a transgender person decides to dress in their spare time is up to them. I'm glad you chose to avoid the absurdity of having to explain what an "official transgender" person was. It would have been really interesting to see where your "facts" come from.

Next time simply ask me if i understand the differences

Click to expand...

You don't, so I don't need to ask. It's been obvious that you don't from the moment you decided to respond to my posts. I addressed the issue of being transgender in the military. Hell, that was part of the issue being addressed in your OP's quotation of the article. You decided that there was such a thing as being "OFFICIALLY transgender". From the moment you posted that, I just wrote your comments off. I love it when people prove that they don't have a clue what it is they are discussing from the minute they respond to me.

instead of guessing and just making stuff up

Click to expand...

I made nothing up. I posted various scenarios and asked for clarification on how the military should deal with them. You posted about... what was it again? Officially transgender? A label you get from going to a doctor? :lol:

youll have better success in the witchhunt and strawmen. BUT I see your issue now though, you feel that the military is just going to throw its current regulations out the window and just let people do whatever they want, holy cow all of a sudden "cross dressing" allows people to do what ever lol well when that happens you let me know.

Click to expand...

What was asked - and which clearly escaped you - is: What is the military is supposed to do about its current regulations as it tries to balance out the idea of letting transgender soldiers openly serve? Should it make exceptions for some soldiers? What if a cisgender soldier decides he'll grow his hair as long as he wants to and wear earrings? Can they do that? No? How is that fair to them? You see Agent J, you jumped the gun. I don't think you actually read your article and your posts are noticeably devoid of the word "FACTS". As a matter of fact, this is one of the few times I've ever seen you retreat from a discussion on gay issues so quickly. I implore you to read your articles more carefully from now on. It definitely saves you from knee jerk reactions to anybody who disagrees with you.

Nilly said:

If they identify as a man they'd wear a mans uniform. If they identify as a women they'd wear a women's uniform. I'm not sure what's so unprofessional about that.

As Agent J said, as long as they're doing their jobs, why would it matter.

Click to expand...

Why would it matter? Because the military is a place where if your boots aren't perfectly compliant with FM670-1, if even a tiny bit of velcro shows from under your name tape, if your cover has a hint of a sweat stain, it's the end of the world your 1st Sergeant is freaking out and you get extra duty.

Magnify that hyper-overreaction by a million if a manly faced soldier shows up in a skirt.

Hatuey said:

Let's start with this. Apparently, you are not aware of the differences (edited out the rest based on a false assumption)

Click to expand...

LOL sorry I didn't read any of that because your factually made up assumption was simply wrong, this fact will never change. I stopped right here:
"Let's start with this. Apparently, you are not aware of the differences"
but please continue your ranting , meltdown and strawman though. Good luck! Thanks for the laughs.

Jerry said:

IMO there shouldn't be male and femail uniforms. A cut more accomidating to the sex's form is one thing, but skirts vs slacks shouldn't exist. A soldier is a soldier is a soldier. Your race is American, your color is green, your scripture is the constitution, your sexual preference is killer, your political views are your orders.

Click to expand...

Well, I for one wouldn't really care if the army decided to make unisex uniforms. However, as it stands, there are a lot of regulations in the military which aren't gender neutral. How would a policy of "openly serving" address those? What I found interesting was the wording used by the official in the article. He clearly stated transgender folks should be allowed to serve openly. I didn't know that they weren't. What I do know is that a person doesn't have to be transgender in the military anymore than a person needs to express their sexuality in the military. I know they shouldn't be kicked out for how they express their sexuality and gender when they're not in military clothing. However, there does exist a line where a person's personal life and military regulations are incompatible for professional reasons. This is one of those.

AGENT J said:

My guess is that will simply be for the military to decide based on"ablity to serve" standards.....

Click to expand...

I think I see what you're saying, but I think the military is worried about "good order and diciplin" as it pertains to General Order #1. With gender segrigation in force, the military has to work out sleeping araingments, head & showers, even the gender if the medic who can render normal treatment.

The military gets sued everywhere it gets something 'wrong'.

IMO this is exactly as if racial segrigation were in force and the military was trying to figure out what to do with soldiers of a mixed background. Best answer in both cases is just end segrigation.

AGENT J said:

LOL sorry I didn't read any of that because your factually made up assumption was simply wrong,

Click to expand...

I didn't make anything up. You began talking about "officially transgender". That was your first mistake as transgender is about a personal perception. Hell, a man wearing stilettos and a red dress is transgender. You decided that there was such a thing as "officially transgender" and that "doctors" gave them what was it? Hormonal treatments once they were diagnosed as being officially transgender? That would make them transsexuals.

AGENT J, you really didn't read my posts or your article carefully enough. All I have to do was ask you one question which proved your post 7's central claim wrong and false: Can you find the definition of transgender for us?

Hatuey said:

Well, I for one wouldn't really care if the army decided to make unisex uniforms. However, as it stands, there are a lot of regulations in the military which aren't gender neutral. How would a policy of "openly serving" address those? What I found interesting was the wording used by the official in the article. He clearly stated transgender folks should be allowed to serve openly. I didn't know that they weren't. What I do know is that a person doesn't have to be transgender in the military anymore than a person needs to express their sexuality in the military. I know they shouldn't be kicked out for how they express their sexuality and gender when they're not in military clothing. However, there does exist a line where a person's personal life and military regulations are incompatible for professional reasons. This is one of those.

Click to expand...

Admitting to being transgender is said to be admitting to behavior contrary to "good order and diciplin" and is thus cause for separation, exactly as admitting to being gay used to be.

Jerry said:

I think I see what you're saying, but I think the military is worried about "good order and diciplin" as it pertains to General Order #1. With gender segrigation in force, the military has to work out sleeping araingments, head & showers, even the gender if the medic who can render normal treatment.

The military gets sued everywhere it gets something 'wrong'.

IMO this is exactly as if racial segrigation were in force and the military was trying to figure out what to do with soldiers of a mixed background. Best answer in both cases is just end segrigation.

Click to expand...

well its not what im saying its what some of the people in charge of the situation are saying per the OP, The Secretary of Defense, but i do agree.

But lalso ike i said earlier im no military expert by any means so im not familiar with all the rules and regulations.
thank you for an example of where it could get tricky (G.O. #1)
im curious how was this addressed with sexual orientation if it was at all?

But Im with you, in general i wouldnt be against your idea like in "starship troopers" all grunts and solders used the same head/showers lol

my only point is all of that is secondary The defense secretary has it right, an the serve, will they be good at it . . .then the rest we can figure out

Jerry said:

Admitting to being transgender is said to be admitting to behavior contrary to "good order and diciplin" and is thus cause for separation, exactly as admitting to being gay used to be.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I didn't know that. I have a problem with people being kicked out of the military for their sexual and gender preferences in private. However, that still doesn't address the question of what the official meant by openly serving. As it stands, openly serving for a gay member means you can't be kicked out simply for being gay. However, being transgender and GIDs involve treatments which encourage a person to lose their fear of being ostracised by expressing their gender. Would an "openly serve" policy also give transgender the privilege to ignore certain regulations? If no, then problem solved. If yes, then I see a potential problem with a lot of discussion ahead.