Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria | |
---|---|
Presented | March 12, 2019 |
Date effective | April 12, 2019 |
Signatories | David L. Norquist, Under Secretary of Defense |
Military Service By Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria | |
---|---|
Date effective | September 4, 2020 |
Signatories | Matthew P. Donovan, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness |
Directive-type Memorandum-19-004, "Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria", was a memorandum issued by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) prohibiting most transgender individuals from serving or enlisting in the United States Armed Forces and the DoD. The DTM took effect on April 12, 2019 under the presidency of Donald Trump, signed by David Norquist. Originally scheduled to expire on March 12, 2020, it was extended until September 12, 2020. [1] [2] Before it expired, it was replaced by Department of Defense Instruction 1300.28, which took effect on September 4, 2020, signed by Matthew Donovan. [3]
The memorandum banned new applicants who have any history of medical transition treatment. Applicants with a history of gender dysphoria were presumptively disqualified unless they have been deemed "stable" after 36 months and willing to detransition to their assigned sex. [4] [5]
The memorandum drew significant controversy from politicians, former military officials, the transgender rights movement, and other commentators. Several National Guards refused to enforce the ban. The memorandum was a topic in the 2020 United States presidential election.
After Joe Biden was elected and sworn in, one of his first executive orders was the repeal of the Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals. [6] [7] On January 25, 2021, Biden signed an executive order that required the DoD to reverse the memorandum, permitting transgender people to serve in the U.S. military. [8] [9] [10]
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2019) |
On October 3, 2016, Donald Trump called transgender individuals serving the United States military "politically correct", but said he would leave such decisions to top military leaders. On May 16, 2017, a letter was signed by several right-leaning groups pushed for banning transgender individuals from the U.S. military. After the failure of passage of House Amendment 183, [11] an amendment to prohibit the DoD from funding gender reassignment surgeries sponsored by Vicky Hartzler, [12] to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, House Republicans went to Defense Secretary James Mattis to make the prohibition, but he refused. An extensive DoD review of the policy was already underway, but a decision was not expected for months. House Republicans then went to the White House to make the prohibition. Chief strategist Steve Bannon encouraged Trump to deal with the matter now and played a role in pushing Trump to move ahead with banning transgender people from the military, despite the ongoing DoD review. [13] [14]
In July 2017, the Freedom Caucus threatened not to vote for the budget unless President Trump instituted some prohibition on paying for gender reassignment surgeries and hormone treatments for transgender people serving in the military. The interagency process had gone to work on the question, and the general counsels of the departments and agencies had weighed in. The Deputies Committee had met, and there were several Principals Committee meetings. There was no agreement, but four options were developed: [15]
On July 26, 2017, President Trump tweeted that he would ban transgender personnel in the United States military. [16] According to Politico , President Trump had always planned to ban transgender individuals from the military and prohibit the DoD from funding gender reassignment surgeries. Per several congressional and White House sources, the tweet was a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal that was a priority for Trump and was on the verge of defeat. [13] [17]
On August 4, 2017, a guidance called "A Guidance Policy for Open Transgender Service Phase Out" was approved by the White House Counsel's office. The guidance encourages early retirement, push out any enlisted personnel after their contract expired, and fire transgender officers who are up for promotion. The new policy did allow transgender service members to continue serving, but offered no protection from harassment or other efforts to get them to quit, along with prohibiting coverage of transitioning or other medical costs. The guidance was expected to be transmitted to the DoD the week of August 7, 2017, but tensions with North Korea, internal conflict within the White House, and pushback from the military prompted the authors of the policy to revise it again. [18] [19]
Waivers are granted separately for gender dysphoria, to serve as one's preferred gender, and to receive maintenance hormone therapy. There is ambiguity as to the consequences of a denial of the waiver. [20]
On May 14, 2020, for the first time the United States Navy granted a wavier to an anonymous Naval officer, who was facing involuntary discharge serve, to serve in their preferred gender, to include obtaining a gender marker change in (the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System) and being allowed to adhere to standards associated with their preferred gender, such as uniforms and grooming. [21]
Group | 2016–2019 | 2019–2020 | |
---|---|---|---|
Service members | Transgender with no history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria | May serve in biological sex | |
With diagnosis of gender dysphoria | May serve in preferred gender upon completing transition | May serve in biological sex. If unable/unwilling to serve in biological sex, separation procedure may apply. | |
Applicants | Transgender with no history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria | May serve in biological sex | |
With diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria | Presumptively disqualified unless stable for 18 months in preferred gender or biological sex | Presumptively disqualified unless stable for 36 months and willing and able to serve in biological sex | |
With history of medical transition treatment | Presumptively disqualified |
As of August 7, 2019, according to the Washington Blade , the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force, United States Marine Corps, and United States Coast Guard had engaged in no discharges under DTM-19-004. However, the Coast Guard reported denying enlistment to two applicants under DTM-19-004. [22]
The National Guards of California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington refused to enforce the transgender ban. [23] [24] [25] [26]
The Navy did not prohibit transgender personnel from expressing their identity off-duty and did not place gender restrictions on their clothing. However, regional commanders and the senior officers present could suspend or restrict the privilege of wearing preferred gender civilian attire to meet local conditions and host-nation agreements with foreign countries. [27]
The United States Naval Academy planned to ban transgender people from attending the school in fall 2020. [28]
Congress | Bill numbers | Date introduced | Sponsors | # of cosponsors | Latest status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
116th Congress | H.R. 2500 | May 2, 2019 | Adam Smith | 1 | House – December 7, 2019. The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2500. |
116th Congress | H.R. 2740 | May 15, 2019 | Rosa L. DeLauro | 0 | Senate – October 7, 2019. Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 140. |
116th Congress | H.R. 1032 | February 7, 2019 | Jackie Speier | 23 | House – August 2, 2019. Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. |
116th Congress | S. 373 | February 7, 2019 | Kirsten Gillibrand | 12 | Senate – July 2, 2019. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. |
The memorandum had widespread support among Republicans. The Republican National Committee endorsed the trans ban from the military. [29] [30] Representative Ken Calvert of California called for the exclusion of trans soldiers due to "deployability" problems. [31] Calvert stated, "Individuals with medical conditions that do not allow them to deploy, such as those identified in the policy, adversely impact military readiness and reduce the military's warfighting capability." However, some of Trump's supporters expressed their opposition to the ban, including Christopher R. Barron. [32]
In August 2017, 56 retired generals and admirals signed on to a statement opposing the ban. Among them were General John R. Allen, General Robert W. Sennewald, and Vice Admiral Donald Arthur. The statement said in part: "[T]he proposed ban would degrade readiness even more than the failed 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Patriotic transgender Americans who are serving — and who want to serve — must not be dismissed, deprived of medically necessary health care, or forced to compromise their integrity or hide their identity." [33]
Laverne Cox said, "This administration's ban on transgender service members will go into effect this Friday April 12, 2019. They have targeted trans people from the moment they took power." [34]
The American Medical Association told the Associated Press in April 2019 that the memorandum mischaracterized transgender people as having a "deficiency". [35]
Kirsten Gillibrand condemned Trump for the directive, saying, "A man who has never served has told men and women that their service is not worthy, based on their gender identity. I can't think of a more discriminatory, outrageous statement." [36] Another Democratic politician, Steve Bullock, the governor of Montana, announced he would allow transgender Americans to serve in the military. [37] Elizabeth Warren pledged to overturn military transgender ban on the first day of her presidency. [38]
On March 18, 2019, Democratic 2020 nominee Cory Booker vowed to reverse Donald Trump's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military if elected. [39]
During his 2020 presidential campaign, Mike Bloomberg pledged to reverse the ban on transgender individuals in the military. [40]
In September 2020, Democratic nominee Joe Biden promised he would reverse the ban. [41] [42] When asked about "the rights of transgender people, banning them from military service" in a televised townhall on October 15, 2020, Biden replied, "I would just flat-out change the law. I would eliminated [Trump's] executive orders, number one." [43]
Four lawsuits challenging Directive-type Memorandum-19-004 yielded no judicial remedies:
The decision by the Supreme Court to stay preliminary injunctions in the cases Karnoski v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump suggested the justices would likely uphold the ban in a ruling. [44]
On March 28, 2019, the House of Representatives passed H.Res. 124 with 238 yeas, 185 nays, 1 present, and 8 not voting. The resolution was a non-binding resolution expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals. [45]
Date(s) conducted | Support ban | Oppose ban | Don't know / NA | Margin of error | Sample | Conducted by | Polling type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 15, 2019 – May 30, 2019 | 26% | 71% | 2% | 4% | 1,017 adults | Gallup | Telephone |
April 9, 2019 – April 20, 2019 | 32% | 63% | 5% | 3.5% | 1,100 adults | PRRI | Landline and cellphone |
January 25, 2019 – February 16, 2019 | 24% | 59% | 8% | 2% | 8,823 adults | Reuters / Ipsos | Online |
January 25, 2019 – January 28, 2019 | 22% | 70% | 8% | 3.1% | 1,004 voters | Quinnipiac University Poll | Online |
January 25, 2019 – January 26, 2019 | 41% | 59% | 3.7% | 1,000 registered voters | The Hill / HarrisX | Live interviewers call landlines and cell phones | |
January 22, 2019 – January 23, 2019 | 44% | 43% | 13% | 1,000 registered voters | Rasmussen Reports | Likely voters | |
March 25, 2018 – March 27, 2018 | 34% [46] | 49% [46] | 13% [46] | 3.4% | 1,500 adults | The Economist / YouGov Poll | Web-based interviews |
34% [47] | 48% [47] | 18% [47] | |||||
December 14, 2017 – December 17, 2017 | 23% | 73% | 5% | 3.6% | 1,001 adults | CNN / ssrs | Live interviewers call landlines and cell phones |
August 2, 2017 – August 8, 2017 | 30% | 64% | 6% | 2.7% | 2,024 adults | PRRI | Landline and cellphone |
July 27, 2017 – August 1, 2017 | 27% | 68% | 5% | 3.4% | 1,125 voters | Quinnipiac University Poll | Live interviewers call landlines and cell phones |
July 27, 2017 – July 29, 2017 | 21% | 68% | 11% | 2% | 1,972 registered voters | Morning Consult National Tracking Poll | Online |
July 26, 2017 – July 28, 2017 | 27% | 58% | 16% | 3.2% | 1,249 adults | IPSOS / REUTERS POLL DATA Archived August 16, 2017, at the Wayback Machine | Online |
July 26, 2017 – January 27, 2017 | 44% | 45% | 11% | 3% | 1,000 registered voters | Rasmussen Reports | Likely voters |
On January 25, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14004, which ended the transgender military ban. [48] Despite immediately revoking the 2017 and 2018 presidential memorandums which aided the instruction, the DoD is not required to repeal the Instruction until after holding consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [9] The DoD announced gender inclusion at the end of March 2021. [49]
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel are able to serve in the armed forces of some countries around the world: the vast majority of industrialized, Western countries including some South American countries such as Argentina and Chile in addition to South Africa, and Israel. The rights concerning intersex people are more vague.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States rank among the most advanced in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing significantly since the late 1980s.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face difficulties in prison such as increased vulnerability to sexual assault, other kinds of violence, and trouble accessing necessary medical care. While much of the available data on LGBTQ inmates comes from the United States, Amnesty International maintains records of known incidents internationally in which LGBTQ prisoners and those perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender have suffered torture, ill-treatment and violence at the hands of fellow inmates as well as prison officials.
In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans. However, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals in Alabama face legal challenges and discrimination not experienced by non-LGBTQ Alabamians. LGBTQ rights in Alabama—a Republican Party stronghold located in both the Deep South and greater Bible Belt—are limited in comparison to most other states. As one of the most socially conservative states in the country, Alabama is one of the only two states along with neighboring Mississippi where opposition to same-sex marriage outnumbers support.
Puberty blockers, also called puberty inhibitors or hormone blockers, are medicines used to postpone puberty in children. The most commonly used puberty blockers are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, which suppress the production of sex hormones, including testosterone and estrogen. In addition to their use in treating precocious puberty, which involves puberty occurring at an unusually early age in children, puberty blockers are also used for transgender children to delay the development of unwanted sex characteristics, so as to allow transgender youth more time to explore their gender identity.
Not all armed forces have policies explicitly permitting LGBT personnel. Generally speaking, Western European militaries show a greater tendency toward inclusion of LGBT individuals. As of January 2021, 21 countries allow transgender military personnel to serve openly: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Cuba and Thailand reportedly allowed transgender service in a limited capacity. In 1974, the Netherlands was the first country to allow transgender military personnel. The United States has allowed transgender personnel to serve in the military under varying conditions since President Joe Biden signed an executive order that allowed them to do so.
This article addresses the legal and regulatory history of transgender and transsexual people in the United States including case law and governmental regulatory action affecting their legal status and privileges, at the federal, state, municipal, and local level, and including military justice as well.
The United States Armed Forces have a long history of transgender service personnel, dating back to at least the Civil War. Initially, most such service members were women, who disguised themselves as men in order to serve in combat roles. Many reverted to their female identities upon leaving their service, but others maintained their male identities. In more recent years, openly transgender people have served or sought to serve in the military. The subject began to engender some political controversy starting with transgender servicemembers being banned in 1960 and possibly earlier. This controversy came to a head in the 2010s and was subjected to relatively rapid changes for the next few years. As of 2021, transgender individuals are expressly permitted to serve openly as their identified gender. A brief timeline is as follows:
Stone v. Trump (1:17-cv-02459-MJG) was a lawsuit filed on August 28, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleged that President Donald Trump's ban on transgender personnel joining the U.S. military violated their equal protection and due process rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland filed the suit on behalf of Petty Officer First Class Brock Stone, an 11-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, and several other transgender service members. In addition to President Trump, the suit named as defendants the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
The Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals, officially the Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, is the 27th presidential memorandum signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017. The intent was to prevent transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, on the basis that they would be a financial burden due to sex reassignment procedures and associated costs. Federal courts delayed the implementation of this rule by issuing four injunctions. On January 22, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration's ban to take effect.
In the past most lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel had major restrictions placed on them in terms of service in the United States military. As of 2010 sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military varies greatly as the United States Armed Forces have become increasingly openly diverse in the regards of LGBTQ people and acceptance towards them.
Jane Doe v. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017, and decided January 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the Trump administration's policy should not be blocked. Nonetheless, the Trump administration's policy continued to be blocked due to three preliminary injunctions against it that were not part of this lawsuit and which remained in effect as of the lawsuit's conclusion on January 4, 2019.
Stockman v. Trump (5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KKx) is an old lawsuit filed on September 5, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The suit, like the similar prior suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Karnoski v. Trump, sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of four named and three anonymous transgender plaintiffs by Equality California (EQCA). Two other major LGBT-rights organizations which had filed Jane Doe v. Trump, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, joined the suit as co-counsels in October 2017.
Karnoski v. Trump (2:17-cv-01297-MJP) was a lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, like the similar suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump, sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of three transgender plaintiffs, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gender Justice League by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN.
The Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security Regarding Military Service by Transgender Individuals is the 43rd presidential memorandum signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on March 23, 2018.
The regulations regarding the service of intersex people in the United States Armed Forces are vague and inconsistent due to the broad nature of humans with intersex conditions. The United States Armed Forces as a whole does not officially ban intersex people from service but does exclude many based on the form of their status. Policies regarding all intersex people are not addressed formally although depending on the type of sex variation some intersex people are allowed to serve. The United States military and their requirements for service makes it so they are frequently in a unique predicament when it comes to intersex bodies. With their position of needing to discern between male and female bodies, they are exposed to a broad variety of people, such as those who are intersex whose bodies may not match either classification and are more difficult to make decisions on. This ambiguity leads to confusion regarding military medical, behavioral, and legal laws.
The transgender military ban in the United States under President Donald Trump took several forms. This is a list of articles covering the subject.
This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2021.
The social policy of the Joe Biden administration is intended to improve racial equity, increase access to safe and legal abortions, tighten restrictions on gun sales, among other aims. A number of policies aim to reverse the former policies of President Donald Trump, including the "Muslim" travel ban and loosened anti-discriminatory policies relating to LGBT people.