Transgender Discrimination in The Military, The New Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2012, Vol. 18, No.
3, 500 518
2011 American Psychological Association 1076-8971/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025771
TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY: The New Dont Ask, Dont Tell
Matthew F. Kerrigan
University of Miami School of Law With the recent repeal of the Dont Ask Dont Tell (DADT) policy, gay rights groups celebrated a new victory for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. However, most people do not realize that DADT did not apply to transgender persons. Transgender persons are banned from serving by various regulations within each division of the armed forces and a Department of Defense directive imposing certain psychological and medical restrictions. The restrictions are automatic and do not leave room for case-by-case evaluation of readiness to serve. This paper rst examines a study conducted by the Palm Center of the University of California, Santa Barbara, which provides new insight into the plight of transgender service members and veterans. It then discusses the broad-reaching impact of certain military regulations that threaten not only transgender rights, but the rights of all LGBT persons in the military. It then examines the limited case law pertaining to transgender rights and discrimination in the military. Finally, this paper argues that if regulations targeting transgender persons are not reexamined, the repeal of DADT might not truly protect all lesbian, gay and bisexual persons, as the existing regulations leave room for arbitrary discrimination. Keywords: transgender, discrimination, military, LGBT, gender-nonconforming
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
With the recent repeal of the Dont Ask Dont Tell1 (DADT) policy approved by the senate and signed by the President on December 22, 2010, gay rights groups celebrated a new victory for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights.2 However, most people do not realize that DADT did not apply to transgender persons.3 Transgender persons are banned from serving by various regulations within each division of the armed forces and a Department of Defense directive, imposing certain psychological and medical restrictions.4 The restric-
This article was published Online First October 24, 2011. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew Kerrigan, 130 West 15th Street, Apt 5E New York, NY 10011. E-mail: mkerrigan86@gmail.com 10 U.S.C. 654 (2010). Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Obama Signs Away Dont Ask, Dont Tell, N.Y. Times, December 22, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/us/politics/23military.html. 3 10 U.S.C. 654, the statute that created the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy, refers only to homosexual and bisexual conduct. There is no mention of transgender persons. 4 Karen Moulding et al., Transgender Persons in the Military, 1 Sexual Orientation and the Law 7:57 (2010) (citing U.S. Dept of Defense, Dir. 6130.4, Criteria and Procedure Requirements for Physical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Armed Forces para. E1.29 (2 Apr. 2004) [hereinafter DOD Dir. 6103.4] (stating that the Department of Defense considers transsexualism a psychosexual condition that is a cause for rejection for appointment, enlistment, or induction).
2 1
500
TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY
501
tions are automatic and do not leave room for case-by-case evaluation of readiness to serve.5 Even though transgender is a different concept from homosexuality, transgender rights should not be ignored when discussing repeal of the controversial DADT policy. A recent study by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara shows that many transgender service people have been asked if they were gay at some point by military personnel,6 and several have been discharged due to DADT,7 even though it should not have applied to them.8 Although transgender persons are not technically allowed to serve in the military, there are many active transgender service members and veterans.9 Accordingly, the repeal of DADT may be incomplete; transgender persons are still subject to discrimination from military regulations. Transgenderism is a challenge to the strict binary gender system assumed by the military, and much of the Western world.10 The term transgender is both complicated and broad. Although the scope of the concept is contestable, the following denition provides an example of its breadth:
Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe a range of identities and experiences, including but not limited to preoperative, postoperative, and nonoperative transsexual people, male and female cross-dressers; intersex individuals; and men and woman, regardless of their sexual orientation, whose appearance, behavior, or characteristics are perceived to be different than that stereotypically associated with their sex assigned at birth.11 This denition of transgender also includes people who do not self-identify as transgender but are perceived as such.12
With the term transgender so broadly dened, it is possible that the military could use imputation of transgenderism as a proxy form of discrimination even after the repeal of DADT. In addition to continuing to prohibit transgender persons from serving, the military could prevent many gay, lesbian, and bisexual people from serving by claiming that they do not t stereotypical gender norms, using the psychological and medical restrictions against transgender persons
5 6
Id. Karl Bryant & Kristen Schilt, The Palm Center, Transgender People in the U.S. Military: Summary and Analysis of the 2008 Transgender American Veterans Association Survey 7 (2008), retrieved from, http://www.palmcenter.org/system/les/TGPeopleUSMilitary.pdf. 7 Id. 8 Monica F. Helms, Transgender Military People and Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Trans Universe, http://www.monicahelms.com/blog/veterans/transgender-military-people-and-dont-ask-dont-tell.htm (Oct. 5, 2010 16:00 EST). 9 Bryant, supra note 6, at 7. 10 Tarryn M. Witten, The Palm Center, Gender Identity and the Military: Transgender, Transsexual and Intersex-identied Individuals in the U.S. Armed Forces 1-2 (2007). Retrieved from http://www.palmcenter.org/les/active/0/TransMilitary2007.pdf. 11 Nan D. Hunter et al., The Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: American, Civil, Liberties, Union Handbook 172 (4th ed. 2004); see also Margaret Schneider et al., Answers to Your Questions About Transgender Individuals and Gender Identity, American Psychological Association, 2 (2006), http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/transgender.pdf (providing a concise overview of basic transgender and gender identity topics). 12 Hunter et al., supra note 11, at 172.
502
13
KERRIGAN
which are already in place. Even if the military does not attempt to use these regulations for widespread discrimination, the regulations still leave a large gray area in terms of possible discrimination. Essentially, people who do not outwardly appear or display mannerisms stereotypical of the gender to which they were born could be at risk of exclusion or discharge. As the Palm Center survey illustrates, transgendered persons can remain in the military as long as they have not undergone gender reassignment surgery and remain in the closet regarding their gender-nonconformity.14 Other people who do not t stereotypical gender norms can serve, but they are at risk of their supervisors nding them psychologically unt.15 Since there are no protections in place for transgender persons and very little discussion on the topic, this leaves room for arbitrary discrimination, as there does not really seem to be a cohesive policy.16 This paper rst examines the Palm Center study, which provides new insight into the plight of transgender service members and veterans. It then discusses the broad-reaching impact of certain military regulations, such as Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,17 that threaten not only transgender rights, but the rights of all LGBT persons in the military. It then examines the limited case law pertaining to transgender rights and discrimination in the military. Finally, this paper argues that if regulations targeting transgender persons are not reexamined, the repeal of DADT might not truly protect all lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, as they leave room for arbitrary discrimination. To avoid discrimination, the military should focus on individual performance on a case-by-case basis, thereby allowing all qualied candidates to serve and protect the country. Factual Background: The Reality of Transgender Persons Serving in the Military In 2008, the Palm Center of the University of California, Santa Barbara18 conducted a study that revealed there are many current and former members of the armed forces who identify as transgender.19 The survey, taken by 827 transgender service members and veterans, asked the participants detailed questions about
13 See, for example, 10 U.S.C. 934, art. 134 (2010); U.S Dept of Army, Reg. 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness para. 2-14(s) (14 Dec. 2007) [hereinafter AR 40]. 14 Bryant, supra note 6, at 2; For example, someone who is a nonoperative cross-dresser is at risk of discharge only if they engage in cross-dressing and are caught. Someone who desires to physically change his or her gender through sex-reassignment surgery would be discharged is they spoke about this desire or actually underwent surgery while enlisted. 15 See, for example, DOD Dir. 6103.4, supra note 4, at E1.29. 16 Bryant, supra note 6, at 8. 17 10 U.S.C. 934, art. 134 (2010). 18 The Palm Center, www.palmcenter.org/about (last visited Nov. 4, 2010). The Palm Center is a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara, committed to sponsoring state-of-the-art scholarship to enhance the quality of public dialogue about critical and controversial issues of the day. For the past decade, the Palm Centers research on sexual minorities in the military has been published in leading social scientic journals. The Palm Center seeks to be a resource for university-afliated as well as independent scholars, students, journalists, opinion leaders, and members of the public. Id. 19 Bryant, supra note 6, at 1.
503
their gender and sexual identity, as well as their experiences in the armed forces.20 Although 827 transgender service members and veterans may seem like a small number, the actual number might be much higher.21 The survey was primarily aimed at veterans, as there was no feasible way to reach current service members.22 Also, because the survey was available only online, it is skewed toward a higher socioeconomic class that would have access to the Internet. Finally, many transgender persons are extremely private about their experiences, making it difcult to obtain data from them.23 The survey showed that 660 identied as transsexual,24 but with 97% not able to transition until after leaving active duty.25 The other 167 people t into one of the many other subcategories of transgenderism, such as gender nonconformists or cross-dressers, and thus do not seek to transition to the opposite sex. There may be many more transgender individuals who do not consider themselves as such, but nonetheless may be perceived by others as gender nonconforming. Most transmen (biological women who identify as men or have transitioned from female to male) were seen as women while serving, and most transwomen (biological males who identify as female or who have transitioned from male to female) were seen as men while serving.26 While in the military, 47% served in combat zones27 and 86% of the veterans had been honorably discharged,28 indicating that transgender persons have been able to serve successfully. Even though DADT does not apply specically to transgender persons, 38% reported that they were asked if they were gay.29 It was always a violation of DADT to ask a person if he or she is gay, even if the person was not. While some transgender persons also identify as gay,30 the fact that so many transgender persons were asked if they were gay highlights the conation of gay and transgender issues by the military despite the militarys own policies separating the two identities. Transmen reported different experiences from transwomen when dealing with DADT, with 72% of transmen suspected of being gay and 37% of transwomen suspected of being lesbians.31 Discrimination does not end after completing active duty in the military. Transgender persons who have served in the military continue to face discrimination after they have been discharged.32 While Veterans Health Care System, commonly referred to as the VA, has attempted to promote policies that protect
20 21
Id. Id. at 2. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. at 5. 27 Id. at 4. 28 Id. 29 Id. at 7. 30 Shannon Price Minter, Do Transsexuals Dream of Gay Rights? Getting Real about Transgender Inclusion, Transgender Rights, Transgender Rights, 142 (Paisley Currah et al. eds., 1st ed. 2006). 31 Id. 32 See, for Example, Bryant, supra Note 6, at 8 9.
504
33
KERRIGAN
transgender rights, the actual veteran experiences within the VA health care system do not necessarily reect that.34 The VA does not recognize the Harry Benjamin Standard of Care, the international standard for transgender care,35 and does not offer sex reassignment surgery.36 The VA Boston Health care system, however, has mandated that transgender veterans should receive fair and appropriate treatment other than what is nationally banned by federal regulation.37 The memorandum incorporating the policy recognizes that the VA system does serve transgender veterans and contains detailed policies pertaining to fair and equal treatment of transgender veterans.38 The Palm Center survey, however, indicates there are still many problems with transgender patient care and lack of cohesive policy.39 While sex reassignment surgery is explicitly banned,40 one patient said that when he inquired about the procedure he received inconsistent information; most doctors simply said it was not allowed, while some said it had been done in the past, and one even cursed him.41 Respondents to the survey also pointed to a range of discriminatory experiences, ranging from refusal to address patients with the appropriate gender pronouns after surgery or not making eye contact; or in one particular case, a patient was told that I should just go away because I was an insult to the brave real men who were there for treatment.42 Ten percent of the sample (it is unclear if this is total or of those who attempted to use the VA) were turned away from the VA completely, simply because they were transgender.43 Though some might argue that transgender discrimination does not warrant public discussion, citing relatively low numbers of self-identied transgender persons serving in the military, the true number is likely substantially larger, meaning those who do serve are successful, as there are relatively few discharges for being transgender.44 Prior case law, various military regulations, as well as
33 See, for example, Department of Veteran Affairs VA Boston Health care System, Patient Care Memorandum 1 (2008). Retrieved from http://www.tavausa.org/Management%20of%20Transgender% 20Veteran%20Patients_7.08.pdf. 34 Bryant, supra Note 6, at 8. 35 Molding et al., supra note 4, at 7:57; See generally World Professional Association for Transgender Health, http://www.wpath.org/index.cfm (last visited Nov. 4, 2010) (supporting that The Harry Benjamin Standard of Care is the international standard of care for transgender persons and including information and resources). 36 38 C.F.R. 17.38 (c)(4) (2010) (stating that gender alteration surgery is explicitly forbidden by VA health care). 37 Department of Veteran Affairs VA Boston Health care System, Patient Care Memorandum 1 (2008). Retrieved from http://www.tavausa.org/Management%20of%20Transgender%20Veteran% 20Patients_7.08.pdf. 38 Id. 39 Bryant, supra Note 6, at 8 9. 40 38 C.F.R. 17.38 (c)(4) (2010). 41 Bryant, supra Note 6, at 8. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 As noted earlier, the Palm Center study shows that 86% of those surveyed were honorably discharged. Bryant, supra note 6, at 4.
505
potentially discriminatory veteran health care transgender persons in the military.
45
all pose continuing threats to
The Military as a Male-Oriented Institution In order to discuss the plight of transgender people within the military, it is crucial to understand the ingrained maleness of the military. Though women are no longer categorically excluded from serving, the military still values traditional male characteristics. The military has traditionally looked for real men to serve, which presents challenges for women, gays, and anyone who is gender nonconforming. Throughout history, many cultures have viewed military service as a masculine pursuit in many cultures.46 The United States military had a history of employing women as civilians in clerical and nursing positions, but did not allow women to serve in the military until after World War II when President Truman signed the Womens Armed Services Integration Act.47 The role of women was still limited, however. Following the implementation of the all-volunteer military in the 1970s, roles for women expanded.48 Today, women are permitted to serve in almost all positions, but not in most combat situations.49 Thus they are excluded from four service categories: infantry, armor, artillery, and combat engineers, all of which require a soldier to be prepared to ght in direct, close-quarters combat or piloting combat aircraft.50 There has also been much more recent progress in allowing lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to serve in the United States Military in the reversal of DADT. Nonetheless, many observers believe there still is an ideology of masculinism in the military.51 Some contend that [w]arfare has always been, with only very limited exceptions, the work of men. No modern society relies, and virtually no premodern society relied, on women as combat soldiers.52 As psychologist David Barash has observed, in every known societynow and at any time in the pastit has been men and not women who were primarily expected to deal with enemies.53 This is clearly true as historical fact. It is unclear, however, whether this can or will change with advances in technology and the evolution of the modern battleeld. However, when discussing elimination of sex discrimination in the military, some contend that it overlooks the possibility of predispositions rooted deep in the psyches of both males and females that may stand as an obstacle to integration.54
Bryant, supra Note 6, at 8. See, for example, Kingsley R. Browne, Women at War: An Evolutionary Perspective, 49 Buff. L. Rev. 51 (2001). 47 Womens Armed Services Integration Act of 1948, Pub. L. No. 80 625, 62 Stat. 356 (1948). 48 Browne, supra Note 46, at 59. 49 Id. 50 Krystyna M. Cloutier, Marching Toward War: Reconnoitering the Use of All Female Platoons, 40 Conn. L. Rev. 1531, 1552 (2008); It should be noted these limitations on women serving in combat limit the ability of women to rise in ranks, given the centrality of direct combat to the image of what it means to be a career military person. 51 Browne, Supra Note 46, at 55. 52 Id. 53 Id. at 233. 54 Id. at 56.
46 45
506
KERRIGAN
Upon further examination of masculinism in the modern military, it appears to be a concept used to support the idea that certain groups of people should be excluded from the military in order to promote increased morale and unit cohesion.55 The military rst used this argument to keep women out of the military, then gays and lesbians, and now transgender people. The Army has created a system of morale that is based on masculinity:
That unifying theme is the pursuit of manhood. Manhood, of course, has no existence except as it is expressed and perceived. The pursuit of manhood is an expressive undertaking, a series of dramatic performances. Masculinity is traditionally dened around the idea of power; the armed forces are the nations preeminent symbol of power; and, not incidentally, the Marines are looking for a few good men. The symbolism is not a side effect; it is the main point.56
This masculinity becomes exclusionary policy through not permitting women to serve in combat situations, and for many years not allowing gay people to serve. However, those who oppose women in combat, and for the same reasons gay and transgender persons, rely on the efciency argument. This view argues that the military needs to put priority on its main mission of winning wars, not on social-change experiments. Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf said: Decisions on what roles women should play in the military must be based on military standards, not on womens rights.57 Though the end goal of maintaining the strongest possible military forces is laudable, this can probably still be achieved without disregard for discrimination of capable individuals who are dedicated to promoting a strong and effective military. Despite this continued commitment to the masculine ideal of the military, women currently comprise 14.5% of military personnel on active duty.58 Allowing increasing numbers of women to serve and expanding the roles they are permitted to assume in the military has not had the effect of decreasing morale or unit cohesion. Now, with gay and lesbian servicemen able to serve openly, there seems to be little resistance from military ofcials and troops related to cohesion and morale issues as well, with the military continuing to function normally. At this point, if these arguments have failed to prevent women and gay people from serving in the vast majority of military positions, there may not be any reason to keep physically and mentally t transgender people from serving as well. Statutes and Cases Statutes and Regulations Preventing Transgender Persons From Serving Transgender persons are prevented from serving in the military by several statutes and regulations. Transsexuals, those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery, are forbidden from serving through several medical regulations.
55 56
Cloutier, supra Note 50, at 1553. Kenneth L. Karst, The Pursuit of Manhood and the Desegregation of the Armed Forces, 38 UCLA L. Rev. 499, 500 01 (1991). 57 Cloutier, supra Note 50, at 1553. 58 Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation, Inc. (February 18, 2011), http://www.womensmemorial.org/PDFs/StatsonWIM.pdf.
507
A Department of Defense directive states that the military considers transsexualism a psychosexual condition that is a cause for rejection for appointment, enlistment, or induction.59 While the Department of Defense directive applies to all military branches, each individual branch of the military also has its own regulations which prevent transsexuals from serving. For example, Army Regulation 40 501, paragraph 214(s) provides that major abnormalities and defects of the genitalia such as change of sex . . . constitutes a disqualifying medical defect. Paragraph 227(n) of Army Regulation 40 501 also lists a variety of transgender conditions and behaviors under a subsection of psychiatric and behavioral disorders, stating persons suffering from Current or history of psychosexual conditions, including, but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias, do not meet the standards for medical tness. Similarly, Air Force Regulation 160 43, 5-13b(5), (6), & (15) requires medical evaluation of transsexuals as to physical tness for retention, listing the following as medical conditions that are normally cause for referral to a medical evaluation board: (5) Gonadectomy. Bilateral. . . . (6) Penis. Amputation. (15) Major abnormalities and defects of the genitalia such as change of sex, a history thereof, or complications . . . residual to surgical corrections of these conditions.60 Though the medical regulations directly target transgender persons who have undergone physical changes such as gender reassignment surgery, gender-nonconforming behaviors such as cross-dressing are prohibited through Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ] is the foundation of military law for all United States military and applies to all branches of the military. Article 134 gives the military broad power to discharge service members for any behavior seen as prejudicial to good order. The Article states that:
Though not specically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.61
The statute essentially serves as a catch-all method the military could employ to justify punishing or discharging someone for almost any behavior seen as out of the ordinary. In fact, almost any type of conduct that could be deemed unusual may be grounds for an Article 134 violation.62 Despite the statutes language being extremely vague and allowing for potential discrimination, the Supreme Court has earlier upheld Article 134 against a challenge that it was void for
59 60
DOD Dir. 6103.4, supra Note 4. U.S. Dept of Air Force, Reg. 160 43, Standards of Medical Fitness para. 1-1a [hereinafter AFR 160] [superseded by U.S. Dept of Air Force, Instruction 48 123, Medical Examinations and Standards (24 Sept. 2009)]. 61 10 U.S.C. 934, art. 134 (2010). 62 Id. (citing Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, R.C.M. 920(e)(2) (2008) [hereinafter MCM 920(e)(2)]).
508
63
KERRIGAN
vagueness. Although the reported cases discussed below discuss the articles usage in the context of cross-dressing, the broad language means that it could be used against a variety of transgender behaviors and appearances. Cases Involving Post-Operative Transgender Service Members Case law regarding transgender rights in the military is limited. There have been several cases dealing with service members who have gone through transition, as well as several cases pertaining to cross-dressing and transvestism. All of the cases involve biological men who have either transitioned or cross-dress as women. There are no known cases involving biological women who are transgender. In Doe v. Alexander,64 a court rst addressed the legality of denying admission into the Army to a candidate who had undergone sexual reassignment surgery. In this case, the appellant had served in the military for 8.5 years as a man before leaving active duty in 1967.65 He then transitioned into a woman.66 She then applied to the Army Reserve in 1976 as an ofcer but was rejected on the basis of Army Regulation 40 501, paragraph 214(s).67 The plaintiff argued that she should still be able to serve due to her special skills in cryptology and languages.68 The court declined to decide the case on the merits.69 In explaining its decision, the court employed the Mindes test to determine that this military regulation issue was nonjusticiable.70 The Mindes test considers: (1) the nature and strength of plaintiffs challenge, (2) the potential injury to plaintiff if review is declined, (3) the nature and degree of interference with the military function, and (4) the extent to which the exercise of military expertise or discretion is involved.71 In evaluating the case based on this test, the court found that the appellant had no constitutional right to serve, her injuries were speculative at best given her age and rules restricting ofcer appointment, and there would in fact be interference with military function.72 The fourth factor, as the court notes, leaves the military broad discretion to justify its actions.73 The Doe court stated that the case challenged a military medical tness regulation and that the courts are particularly ill-equipped to develop judicial standards for passing on the validity of judgments concerning medical tness for the military.74 In its discussion, the court also cited Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., which held that transsexuals do not constitute a suspect class.75 Even though the court held that this issue was
Id.; See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) (generally upholding the constitutionality of Article 134). 64 Doe v. Alexander, 510 F. Supp. 900, 905 (D. Minn. 1981). 65 Id. at 902. 66 Id. 67 Id. (citing AR 40, supra Note 13, Para. 214). 68 Id. 69 Id. at 904. 70 Id. at 904 (citing Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1971)). 71 Id. 72 Id. 73 Id. 74 Id. (citing Reaves v. Ainsworth, 219 U.S. 296, 306 (1911)). 75 Id. (citing Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1977).
63
509
76
nonjusticiable, it stated that if it were, Beller v. Middendorf would control. In Beller, the court upheld a Navy regulation for discharge for homosexual conduct, reasoning that other service members might not want to work with or hold hostility toward homosexuals.77 Even though this is not controlling precedent, this is an example of a court collapsing gay and transgender issues into the same discussion in the military context. Leyland v. Orr78 shows that transgender people face two bases for dischargepsychological and medical untness. In Leyland,79 an Air Force reservist was honorably discharged for having undergone sexual reassignment surgery. 80 The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records afrmed the discharge on grounds of psychological unsuitability and physical untness.81 The court cited Air Force Regulation 160 43, paragraph 1-1a, which states: It is the intent of these standards to . . . remove from . . . active service . . . those individuals possessing medical defects which will signicantly interfere with their duty performance or station assignability.82 Furthermore, AFR 160 43, 5-13b(5), (6), & (15) requires medical evaluation of transsexuals as to physical tness for retention, listing gonadectomy and penis amputation as medical conditions that are normally cause for referral to a medical evaluation board.83 The Air Force relied on these regulations along with the Surgeon Generals policy at the time that transsexuals should be barred from serving to order Leylands discharge.84 The circuit court declined to discuss the psychological untness ground for discharge without giving much reasoning, simply saying that it was proper in light of the valid discharge for medical untness.85 Leyland attempted to argue that these regulations do not explicitly ban transsexuals from serving, arguing that the appropriate analysis is whether or not the medical condition allows one to serve, citing AFR 160 43, 5-1g(5). That regulation states that the principal issue in any case is whether or not a medical condition permits the evaluee to continue to perform the duties of his or her ofce, grade, or rank in such a manner as to reasonably fulll the purpose of his or her employment on active duty without geographic restrictions.86 Leyland claimed that this meant she should have been given the opportunity to establish that she could perform in the military.87 The court disagreed, stating that the Air Force requirement for individualized assessment does not mean that the evaluee must be given the opportunity to prove that
76 77
Id. at 905 (Citing Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1980)). Id. 78 Leyland v. Orr, 828 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1987). 79 Id. 80 Id. at 585. 81 Id. 82 Id. (citing U.S. Dept of Air Force, Reg. 160 43, Standards of Medical Fitness para. 1-1a [hereinafter AFR 160] [superseded by U.S. Dept of Air Force, Instruction 48 123, Medical Examinations and Standards (24 Sept. 2009)]. 83 Id. at 585. 84 Id. 85 Id. 86 Id. 87 Id. at 586.
510
KERRIGAN
his or her gender reassignment will not impair the ability to serve.88 The court accepted the Air Forces argument that persons who have undergone transitions require a higher level of medical care that would cost more and not be available in remote combat situations.89 A doctor testifying for the Air Force analogized allowing transsexuals to serve to allowing someone with coronary heart disease to serve on the battle eld.90 The Air Force doctor also compared sexual reassignment surgery to a loss of limb.91 Though it is easy to see that loss of an arm or a leg would necessarily limit ones ability to serve effectively in the military, the insinuation that undergoing sexual reassignment surgery is the equivalent to losing a limb may not be fair. It is true that someone who has undergone sexual reassignment surgery may need additional medical care which could make him or her unsuitable for military service. However, the fact that the court explicitly upheld the discharge on grounds of psychological unsuitability as well as medical unsuitability may unfairly affect people who consider themselves transgender but do not plan to undergo sexual reassignment surgery while in the military. Even if someone was able to prove that being transgender would not make them medically unsuitable to serve, they would still be barred from serving due to psychological unsuitability, as the military considers most characteristics of transgenderism to be a psychosexual condition which is grounds for disqualication or discharge.92 Leyland demonstrates that transgender persons face multiple challenges to their ability to serve in the military and do not have the benet of a case-by-case review of ability to serve. Cases Involving Other Transgender Issues and Gender Nonconformity Although the previous cases are concerned primarily with medical regulations and the physical gender transitions of transsexuals, there have been other cases that have upheld potentially broader forms of discrimination that could directly impact the ability of gay people to serve in the military, despite the repeal of DADT. In U.S. v. Davis,93 Davis was given a bad conduct discharge from the Navy for cross-dressing in and around the base.94 Before later being discharged, Davis received treatment from several Navy psychiatrists for his self-admitted gender identity disorder.95 The doctors advised he attend group therapy meetings for his gender-identity disorder.96 Davis testied that he was expected to attend these group sessions cross-dressed and therefore began to attend the sessions in female clothing.97 Davis argued that he was discharged despite the fact that his
88 89
Id. Id. 90 Id. 91 Id. 92 DOD Dir. 6103.4, supra Note 4. 93 U.S. v. Davis, 26 M.J. 445 (C.M.A. 1988). 94 Id. at 446. 95 Id. at 447. 96 Id. 97 Id. It should be noted that although Davis was diagnosed as a transvestite, which implied he had sexual satisfaction from wear womens clothing, he actually claimed to be a transsexual. He later underwent gender reassignment surgery after his discharge. Id.
511
conduct was not illegal either under common law or explicitly under military law.98 Davis was convicted under Article 134 of the UCMJ.99 In afrming the discharge, the court emphasized that Davis admitted that his coworkers had refused to work with him after seeing him dressed as a woman, which therefore had an adverse effect on good order.100 The court said that cross-dressing would almost always be a violation of Article 134.101 The court stated that there rare exceptions in which cross-dressing would not be prejudicial to good order, such as a King Neptune ceremony, which is a traditional military ceremony lled with cross-dressing references.102 This cases rationale could easily be extended to affect gay people serving in the military. Gay men who dress in a somewhat more feminine manner, or women dressing in clothing when out of uniform that is more manly could be seen as gender-nonconforming and therefore subject to discharge. This seems particularly illogical when womens military uniforms appear very similar to uniforms for men. Also, the courts reliance on coworkers unwillingness to work with Davis in this case may also have effectively empowered homophobic fellow servicepersons. Based on this precedent, it might be difcult for someone to know what types of apparel are acceptable and what are not. While Davis appears to suggest that almost any type of gender-nonconforming behavior while serving in the military is impermissible, the Court of Military Appeals in U.S. v. Guerrero103 had a somewhat more nuanced approach. In this case, Guerrero, a male rst class petty ofcer, was accused of both cross-dressing and soliciting a homosexual act from another sailor104 in violation of Article 134. Guerrero had invited a fellow sailor to his home and began to cross-dress in front of him.105 His neighbors at an off-base apartment complex also testied that he had cross-dressed on other occasions at home with his window shades open.106 Guerrero was acquitted of the charge of soliciting a homosexual act but was nonetheless discharged for cross-dressing, even though he did not cross-dress on the base.107 The court interpreted Davis as not making cross-dressing per se
98 99
Id. at 446. Though not specically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. 10 U.S.C. 934, art. 134 (2010). 100 Davis, 26 M.J. at 446. 101 Davis, 26 M.J. at 446. 102 Id. at 449. The fact that there are some conceivable situationssuch as a King Neptune ceremony and Kabuki theaterwhere cross-dressing might not be prejudicial is not signicant. These occasions [meaning Daviss cross-dressing for personal reasons] do not generally occur in or near the barracks or a theater, the locations described in the specications. Id. at 449. It is unclear why Kabuki theater is specically mentioned, as there does not appear to be a relationship specically to the U.S. military. 103 U.S. v. Guerrero, 33 M.J. 295 (C.M.A. 1991). 104 Id. at 296. 105 Guerrero, 33 M.J. at 296. 106 Id. 107 Guerrero, 33 M.J. at 298.
512
KERRIGAN
illegal under Article 134, citing its narrow theatrical exception.108 It held that one must consider (1) the time, (2) the place, (3) the circumstances, and (4) the purpose for the cross-dressing . . . together to determine if the activity is prejudicial to good order and thus a violation of Article 134.109 If Guerrero had cross-dressed more privately, for example, with his curtains closed and the reasonable belief that no other service members were watching, this would not have provided the basis for a legitimate discharge.110 The court concluded that the fact nder must be certain that the prejudice or the discrediting nature of the conduct is legitimately focused toward good order and discipline or discrediting to the armed forces, and is not solely the result of the personal fears, phobias, biases or prejudices of the witness.111 Guerrero also contains an interesting partial dissent that indicates that at least some within the military justice system believe the legitimacy of Article 134 misconduct should be reexamined. In his dissent, Judge Everett stated that Guerreros act of cross-dressing was too indirect and attenuated112 to justify nding him guilty and discharging him for bad conduct.113 In addition, he stated that afrming Guerreros conviction expands Article 134 so greatly as to raise problems of notice and vagueness114 to the point that he thought it could potentially cause the Supreme Court to reexamine the constitutionality of the statute.115 The case law regarding transgender rights in the military is rather sparse, and Guerrero, the last major case, was decided in 1991.116 However, this does not mean that the issue no longer exists or that transgender persons do not serve in the military today. Analysis and Implications of Military Policy The Palm Center survey suggests that United States military policy should be reexamined. According to this study, there are many transgender persons who have served and are currently successfully serving in the military. However, they succeed only by remaining in the closet. Transgender persons must also deal with medical and psychological restrictions, as well as the broad discriminatory potential of Article 134.117 While medical restrictions may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as during the sometimes difcult process of transition, the military should consider developing a case-by-case approach when evaluating transgender individuals, as the defendants called for in Doe v. Alexander118 and
108 109
Id.; See U.S. v. Davis, 26 M.J. 445 (C.M.A. 1988). Guerrero, 33 M.J. at 298. 110 Id. 111 Id. 112 Id. (Everett, J., dissenting). 113 Id. (Everett, J., dissenting). 114 Id. at 299 (Everett, J., dissenting). 115 Id. (Everett, J., dissenting); see also Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) (generally upholding the constitutionally of Article 134). 116 U.S. v. Guerrero, 33 M.J. 295. 117 10 U.S.C. 934, art. 134 (2010). 118 Doe v. Alexander, 510 F. Supp. 900 (D. Minn. 1981).

119
513
Leyland v. Orr. In effect, the military already practices a case-by-case method of evaluation, as numerous studies have shown that transgender persons have been able to successfully serve in the military by concealing the fact that they are transgender and making sure they do not act in a way that would differ from gender norms, provided nothing in a physical exam would indicate they are transsexual or intersex.120 In some cases, direct supervisors and fellow service people may turn a blind eye if they are not bothered by the transgender person. It was well documented during the DADT repeal debates that this was often true of gay service people, so it is possible the same could be true for transgender people in the military.121 However, it is important to remember that not enforcing a discriminatory rule is not the same as implementing an ofcial case-by-case basis standard. Any transgender person remains at risk that someone might charge him at any time or threaten to do so as a form of coercion or bullying. While these transgender persons remain closeted while in the military, they have proven that even though they are transgendered they are still able to serve successfully in the military.122 The military, however, is not just concerned with whether or not a service member can do his or her job, but whether allowing someone will be a threat to unit cohesion. The military has used this argument in the past to segregate the Army, prevent women from serving, and to prevent lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from serving openly, only to reverse these decisions. The militarys discriminatory rules that force transgender individuals serving in the military to remain deeply closeted may also lead to problems related to basic medical treatment. In addition to the multiple hurdles transgender persons must face, starting with the physical exam prior to entry and conscious effort to act in accordance with stereotypical norms, transgender persons must also contend with the fact that there is very limited condentiality for communications with doctors and therapists while serving in the military, thereby preventing them from receiving proper medical and mental health treatment, as they cannot be open with their doctors.123 Many soldiers, lawyers, and mental health professionals have commented that the rules of psychotherapist-patient condentiality in the military are lled with loopholes124 and do not safeguard condentiality as strongly as the federal rules of evidence.125 Soldiers are often reluctant to open up to therapists, as they fear any minor infraction might be revealed and harm their military
119 120
Leyland v. Orr, 828 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1987). Witten, supra Note 10, at 8. 121 See, for example, Elisabeth Bumiller, Service Chiefs Tell Panel of Risks to Dont Ask, Dont Tell Repeal, N.Y. Times, December 23, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/us/ politics/04military.html. Many military ofcials were supportive of the DADT repeal during the Senate debates. One general acknowledged there was a gay person in his unit and that has was a very successful soldier. Id. 122 A recent study showed 86% of transgender veterans were honorably discharged. Bryant, supra note 6, at 4. 123 Id. 124 James Dao and Dan Frosch, Military Rules Said to Hinder Therapy, N.Y. Times, December 6, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/us/07therapists.html?pagewanted all. 125 See Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (holding that federal law recognizes privilege protecting condential communications between psychotherapist and her patient).
514
126
KERRIGAN
careers. In general, there is more leeway for a military physician or therapist to reveal patient information than in a civilian physician-patient relationship, with a goal of ensuring combat readiness. Furthermore, each branch of the military has regulations for disqualication due to certain psychosexual conditions, which lump a wide variety of somewhat unrelated behaviors and traits into one group.127 It should be noted that these rules might be used much more than show up in reported cases. There may be more cases which are not appealed or reported, or there may be charges brought or threatened, with the targeted service person settlingthat is, agreeing to resign to avoid the consequences of a less than honorable discharge. While the military cannot be required to eliminate medical regulations that are sometimes needed to ensure its ability to defend the country, the current implementation of these measures serve as a blanket form of discrimination against transgender persons, wrongly stigmatizing them and considering them to have a disease.128 Another obstacle for transgender rights in the military is Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.129 Article 134 criminalizes any actions or conduct that are to the prejudice of good order130 or bring discredit upon the military.131 The Supreme Court has upheld the statute, despite its vagueness, stating that because of the fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline residing in the military, the General Articles admittedly broad language appropriately reaches speech that might otherwise be permitted in the civilian community.132 Accordingly, the Court declined to strike down Article 134 when it could conceive of a substantial number of situations to which it might be validly applied in order to support the unique command structure of the U.S. Military.133 The military could potentially use Article 134 for any number of discriminatory purposes. For example, despite the repeal of DADT, the military could apply Article 134134 not only against transgender persons, but also lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. For example, if a lesbian ofcer dresses or acts in a manner that would be stereotypically categorized as manly, a commanding ofcer could theoretically report that woman for conduct prejudicial to good
Dao, supra Note 124. See, for example, AR 40 501, supra note 13, para. 227. This regulation lists current or history of psychosexual conditions including, but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias, as grounds for disqualication or discharge. Id. 128 This is a complicated matter, as some transgender persons, particularly those who are transsexual, want to be considered to have a disease in order to obtain better access to medical treatment and insurance coverage, whereas other transgender persons may be gender-nonconforming and increasingly thought of by medical professionals as not having any psychological problems. See, for example, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 53238, (Michael B. First et al. eds., 4th ed. 1994); Schneider, supra note 11. 129 10 U.S.C. 934, art. 134 (2010). 130 Id. 131 Id. 132 Hoege, Major Howard H. Hoege III, Flying Without a Net: United States v. Medina & Its Implications for Article 134 Practice, Army Law., Jun. 2008, 41 (quoting Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 760 (1974)). 133 Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 760 (1974). 134 10 U.S.C. 934, art. 134 (2010).
127 126
515
order, in effect using her outwardly appearing gender-nonconformity as an excuse to discharge her for being a lesbian. In fact, even straight military service people remain at risk for discharge pursuant to Article 134. In April 2011, the Navy began proceedings to discharge two sailors for falling asleep watching TV while lying on top of the covers of the same bed.135 The two sailors claimed to be straight. However, after a roommate walked into the room, he reported the incident, saying it made him feel uncomfortable. The Navy initially attempted to discharge the sailors for unprofessional conduct.136 While the charge was later dropped, this incident shows that anyone serving in the military remains at risk of discharge for acting in a manner different from the stereotypical gender norm. It is important to note that the MCM [Manual for Courts-Martial] acknowledges the potential for virtually limitless application of the General Article in its explanation of clause one: Almost any irregular or improper act on the part of a member of the military service could be regarded as prejudicial in some indirect or remote sense.137 Indeed, it was used in both U.S. v. Davis138 and U.S. v. Guerrero139 to discharge servicemen for cross-dressing, even though the behavior was not explicitly banned. The military has often shown that it does not understand the various forms of transgender identity. For instance, in Davis, the Navy diagnosed Davis as a transvestite when he told the court he was a transsexual and later underwent sexual reassignment surgery. 140 In Guerrero, the military seemed to see cross-dressing and homosexuality as necessarily related, charging Guerrero with both even though there was no express indication in the opinion that he had solicited the other serviceman when cross-dressing in front of him, with the court eventually nding him guilty only for cross-dressing and not guilty as to the related homosexual conduct charge.141 The homosexual conduct charge may have initially arisen because the other serviceman perceived his behavior as a solicitation for a homosexual act, and the military likely accepted this as plausible. This conation of transgender and homosexual classications by the military, despite different regulations for each, shows that people in both categories remain at risk of discharge. Although these cases were tried years ago, it is possible the military might continue to confuse transgender and homosexual persons, as they have done in the past. Recall that many transgender persons reported being asked if they were gay or being discharged under DADT.142 With the idea of gender increasingly understood as more complex than the traditional binary gender system, such identities blur the carefully delineated distinction of body, sex, sexuality and social role, thereby potentially creating
135
Adam Levine and Michael Martinez, Advocacy group: Navy Stops Discharge of Sailor in Sleepover, CNN.com (April 8, 2011 7:15 p.m.) http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/08/ sailor.sleepover/index.html?iref allsearch. 136 Id. 137 Hoege, supra Note 137, at 41 (citing MCM 920(e)(2)). 138 U.S. v. Davis, 26 M.J. 445 (C.M.A. 1988). 139 U.S. v. Guerrero, 33 M.J. 295 (C.M.A. 1991). 140 Davis, 26 M.J. at 447. 141 Guerrero, 33 M.J. at 296. 142 Bryant, supra Note 6, at 7.
516
KERRIGAN
perceived disorder in the rigid order of a military structure.143 While military case law from the 1980s and 1990s labels individuals as transsexuals, transvestites, and cross-dressers,144 the actual gender identity issues the service persons were experiencing were likely much more nuanced. The militarys understanding of LGBT may also be misguided. Historically, the popular perception of sexuality was more interrelated with gender identity.145 The current delineations of LGBT persons, therefore, is quite new and somewhat arbitrary.146 The current classications might be more for convenience, as the separation of sexual orientation from gender variance, transgenderism, and transsexualism reinforces the idea that gender identity has a stable and predictable relation to the gender assigned at birth on inspection of the visible genitals, which ought not to be changed.147 In contrast, the military treatment of sexuality and gender identity is somewhat similar to this historical attitude dating to the turn of the 19th century, where there was not the current distinction between heterosexual and homosexual men, but between conventionally masculine males, who were regarded as men, and effeminate males, known as fairies or pansies, who were regarded as virtual women.148 The same was also true for masculineacting women.149 Similarly, the military seems to value real men, or in other words, men that display traditionally manly attributes. Because the military does not necessarily view sexuality and gender delineations in the same way that current scholars do, the military denition of transgender is potentially even wider in scope than the already broadly dened denition. Between the broad meaning of the term transgender and the vagueness of military regulations used to ban certain types of individuals from serving, such as Article 134,150 there are likely many t people who could be denied entry into the military or who are in the military and risk discharge because they do not conform to stereotypical gender norms. Since the military has shown that it has difculty distinguishing between sexuality and gender issues,151 all LGBT persons remain at risk of discrimination, even in the absence of DADT. Conclusion and Comment The broad scope of the rules the military uses to keep transgender persons from serving, combined with the expansive denition of transgender means that Military policy remains potentially discriminatory to all LGBT individuals, despite the repeal of DADT. Currently, 25 other countries allow homosexuals to
Witten, supra Note 10, at 3. See, for example, Davis, 26 M.J. 445; Guerrero, 33 M.J. 295; Doe v. Alexander, 510 F. Supp. 900 (D. Minn. 1981); Leyland v. Orr, 828 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1987). 145 See George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Makings of the Gay Male World, 1890-194, 13 (1994). 146 Paisley Currah, Defending Genders: Sex and Gender Non-Conformity in the Civil Rights strategies of sexual Minorities, 48 Hastings L.J. 1363,1380 (1997). 147 Id. 148 Chauncey, supra Note 145, at 355. 149 Id. 150 10 U.S.C. 934, art. 134 (2010). 151 See, for example, Guerrero, 33 M.J. 295 (where cross-dressing was wrongly associated with homosexual conduct).
144 143
517
serve openly, while Canada, Spain, the Czech Republic, Thailand, and Israel allow transgender persons to serve.152 In arguing against allowing transgender persons to serve, Major Sherilynn Bunn writes in the Military Law Review that medical reasons alone should keep transgender persons out of the military.153 Indeed, people in the process of transitioning do require a specialized form of care, often including psychotherapy, hormone treatment, and other medical procedures to help with the transition.154 However, this pertains specically to transsexual individuals155 and ignores the fact that there are many other people who identify as transgender who do not require any type of treatment. Many transgender persons do not need constant treatment based on the fact that many passed military medical and psychological evaluations and went on to serve successfully in the military.156 Furthermore, while the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the standard classication of mental disorders, still classies gender-dysphoria as a mental disorder,157 there are many experts who disagree with this classication. The American Psychological Association currently maintains that a psychological condition is only considered to be a mental disorder if it causes mental stress or instability.158 Because many transgender persons do not experience these symptoms, this implies that being transgender does not constitute a mental disorder per se.159 While transsexuals are diagnosed with gender-dysphoria in order to receive sexual reassignment surgery, once they have transitioned they are no longer considered to have the disorder and generally are only required to continue taking hormones, not unlike taking medication for other nondisqualifying conditions. Rather than employing blanket forms of discrimination that do not seem to be effective, the military should focus on recruiting any individual capable of defending the nation. The military should consider adopting a case-by-case approach when evaluating candidates. Clearly, the military cannot be required to remove all regulations regarding tness for service that can somehow have a discriminatory impact. Since there is not a constitutional right to serve in the military,160 the military has every right to employ restrictive entry criteria. All military policies discriminate in order to ensure strong, efcient, and combat-ready armed forces for the protection of the nation.161
Major Sherilyn A. Bunn, Straight Talk: The Implications of Repealing Dont Ask Dont Tell and the Rationale for Preserving Aspects of the Current Policy, 203 Mil. L. Rev. 207, 235 6 (2010). While she lists and describes many countries which do allow LGBT persons to serve openly in the military, Major Bunns opinion is that the experiences of these foreign militaries do not serve as credible evidence in support of allowing LGBT persons to serve in the United States Military because not all aspects of their cultures, governments, or laws, are comparable to the U.S. armed forces. Id at 236. 153 Id. at 222223. 154 Jennifer L. Levi & Bennet H. Klein, Pursuing Protection for Transgender People through Disability Laws, in Transgender Rights, supra note 120, at 85. 155 Id. 156 Bryant, supra Note 6, at 4. 157 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 53238, (Michael B. First et al. eds., 4th ed. 1994). 158 Schneider et al., supra Note 11, at 2. 159 Id. 160 Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974). 161 Witten, supra Note 10, at 1.
152
518
KERRIGAN
Furthermore, military practices are largely based on physical training and strict disciplinary exercises that inherently require uniformity and conformity.162 While certain restrictions are necessary, the current policies in place not only bar capable transgender individuals from serving, but they may also be used as a means of discriminating against gay and lesbian soldiers who may not conrm to stereotypical gender norms. It is important to remember that transgender persons who do not need any treatment often do serve successfully, as indicated in the Palm Center survey.163 Accordingly, the military should consider adopting more tolerant, case-by-case guidelines for determining who is t to serve, while simultaneously ensuring that they do not create unofcial forms of discrimination.
162 Id. (citing S. Moon, Beyond Equality vs. Difference: Professional Women Soldiers in the Korean Army, 9 Soc. Pol. 212214 (2002)). 163 Witten, supra Note 10, at 1.
Received March 29, 2011 Revision received August 24, 2011 Accepted September 1, 2011 y
E-Mail Notication of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notied by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!

Transgender Discrimination in The Military, The New Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Transgender Discrimination in The Military, The New Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2012, Vol. 18, No.

2011 American Psychological Association 1076-8971/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025771

TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY

TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY

TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY

potentially discriminatory veteran health care transgender persons in the military.

all pose continuing threats to

TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY

TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY

TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY

TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY

TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY

TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE MILITARY

E-Mail Notication of Your Latest Issue Online!

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi