Coast Guard Academy supports transitioning (male to female) cadet

[Kierkegaard]

With that being said, how does one obtain and keep a TS/SCI clearance (which a cyber officer almost certainly has) when you have had depression and suicidal thoughts all of your life?

Putting aside the assumption that someone with gender dysphoria has had lifelong suicidal thoughts, a simple diagnosis of depression is no longer an issue for security clearances. Mental health is still part of the clearance determination, but it focuses on conditions that might impact one’s reliability and loyalty.

(Just wanted to note that for any lurkers worried about their clearance being affected by seeking mental healthcare).

 

[Ivy22]

I feel this is the same argument that was made for repealing DADT. Lots of “this could happen, that could happen, something could happen, etc.” … nothing really ever happened…readiness was not destroyed or degraded. Servicemembers have been transitioning for a while now…not tracking anything that really has made a dent in readiness. We can’t even figure out how to reduce plain sexual assault in the military…why start making assumptions about an issue when it isn’t a problem. I have been at two units with transitioning servicemembers, it’s been a non-issue (in fact, everyone was supportive because they had a built reputation of being performers and team players). We have UCMJ articles, laws, and CMEO processes that apply to EVERYONE if they need to be utilized for any type of sexual assault or harassment.

At the end of the day, as long as the person performs based on merit, follows the rules, and has established morals/ethics…what’s the issue? Isn’t that what we want from any service member…whether they are of the biological sex or transition? Good leaders always think about how to best utilize the team’s talents…that typically doesn’t always need to be sex related (at least in the Navy).

Agreed. I think similar things were said a couple decades ago on the topic of integrating women into the military/combat jobs. About how that would negatively affect readiness, but then of course it didn't!
I don't see why allowing someone to live as their preferred gender means that they should lose their security clearance or be denied other opportunities, especially if they are a top performer

Putting aside the assumption that someone with gender dysphoria has had lifelong suicidal thoughts, a simple diagnosis of depression is no longer an issue for security clearances. Mental health is still part of the clearance determination, but it focuses on conditions that might impact one’s reliability and loyalty.

(Just wanted to note that for any lurkers worried about their clearance being affected by seeking mental healthcare).

Also a great point to mention. The Navy recently released an updated Mental Health guide for sailors seeking more information, and it touches on a lot of similar questions too. Tons of resources are available

 

[Bigrod]

Well they should be able to score well on the womens PFT, guess they were bottom on the male standards.

 

[WestCoastRefugee]

Putting aside the assumption that someone with gender dysphoria has had lifelong suicidal thoughts, a simple diagnosis of depression is no longer an issue for security clearances. Mental health is still part of the clearance determination, but it focuses on conditions that might impact one’s reliability and loyalty.

(Just wanted to note that for any lurkers worried about their clearance being affected by seeking mental healthcare).

They were not making an assumption on the article linked earlier in the thread. “The U.S. Army Sustainment Command Cyber Division chief, G6 (Information Management), struggled with depression and suicidal ideation for most of her life.”
Back when we followed basic, common sense protocols, that person would not have been granted a secret clearance much less a TS/SCI. They also would not have been able to enter the military unless they hid that information from MEPS or DODMERB, which of course is a violation of the UCMJ.

 

[USMC Crayons]

I feel this is the same argument that was made for repealing DADT. Lots of “this could happen, that could happen, something could happen, etc.” … nothing really ever happened…readiness was not destroyed or degraded. Servicemembers have been transitioning for a while now…not tracking anything that really has made a dent in readiness. We can’t even figure out how to reduce plain sexual assault in the military…why start making assumptions about an issue when it isn’t a problem. I have been at two units with transitioning servicemembers, it’s been a non-issue (in fact, everyone was supportive because they had a built reputation of being performers and team players). We have UCMJ articles, laws, and CMEO processes that apply to EVERYONE if they need to be utilized for any type of sexual assault or harassment.

At the end of the day, as long as the person performs based on merit, follows the rules, and has established morals/ethics…what’s the issue? Isn’t that what we want from any service member…whether they are of the biological sex or transition? Good leaders always think about how to best utilize the team’s talents…that typically doesn’t always need to be sex related (at least in the Navy).

Gonna have to disagree that this is the same thing as DADT. Only from the standpoint that DADT didn't involve servicemembers potentially being non-deployable for the better part of a year and receiving waivers for physical fitness standards and height and weight requirements. That's a little different animal. Maybe it's different in officer land, but I can tell you in the enlisted ranks special privileges are a big problem for morale and unit cohesiveness. If you are transgender and don't need accommodations, do you. But if you are constantly going to medical, don't have to PT and don't have the deploy there is going to be resentment, and that effects the mission. I also don't think we can hang our hat on the "readiness" question either. There are obviously many reasons, but you can't discount that the military deviating from being an apolitical organization has affected recruiting. I know the Army hasn't met their goals in almost a decade, and the Navy is only meeting them using "accounting" tricks.

 

[Impulsive]

Agreed. I think similar things were said a couple decades ago on the topic of integrating women into the military/combat jobs. About how that would negatively affect readiness, but then of course it didn't!
I don't see why allowing someone to live as their preferred gender means that they should lose their security clearance or be denied other opportunities, especially if they are a top performer


Also a great point to mention. The Navy recently released an updated Mental Health guide for sailors seeking more information, and it touches on a lot of similar questions too. Tons of resources are available

I don't believe we are talking apples and apples. Integrating "females" into combat and support roles is a whole lot different than having a person who is transitioning in those same roles. Having someone, anyone with mental health issues holding a TS/SCI clearance is not a good move! It has nothing to do with gender or transitioning, it has to do with stability, and rational thinking. People get medically discharged for some of the mental health issues brough up in this thread. One of the Psychological issues that is explored and confronted BEFORE someone transitions is what a lot of people here are talking about. When thinking about transitioning, most psychologists/psychiatrists have to sign off on "Gender Dysphoria", if you were to pour through the M-IV, mental health guidelines seem to indicate that someone needs to have a psychological need to transition and that they have been or now are experiencing depression, anxiety, suicidal ideations, frustration, and other mental issues, otherwise they someone are denied the diagnosis of "Gender Dysphoria", which prevents them from transitioning medically under the care of a team to help.

I am sure there are many individuals who can transition with minimal "down time", but to complete the process multiple surgeries are required, by nature these would affect that person's ability to serve in an unrestricted manner. So YES, I would venture a guess that unit cohesiveness would be affected. But to have a person attempting this journey in a unit that is high stress "COULD" cause a lot of issues, most of which could be a real problem for a unit.

JMHO, but if the military desires to "sponsor" (meaning pay for and lose the use of) transitioning service members, then it should occur after training, and the individual should be placed in a "restricted' status until complete and released from psychological counseling.

 

[Kierkegaard]

If the concern is recruiting, we will have to get over the mental health stigma. Just look at the statistics in Gen Z—and what the hell is going on there?

Not to say there aren’t many mental issues that can and should preclude military duty. (Of course someone who is mentally unstable shouldn’t hold a clearance). But for better or worse, everything is a pathology today. 50 years ago you would say someone is shy, now they have “social anxiety”. Back then someone had a melancholy or morose personality, now they have “persistent depression”. Physical insecurity is now body dysmorphia, and so on….All ostensibly in need of therapy and pharmaceuticals (However you feel about that, its a whole other discussion)…People with these issues used to join no problem but only because they were never diagnosed with anything, now they need waivers which take many months to process.

Also…if you think anyone with anxiety shouldn’t hold a TS, you’re going to have to fire about half of the information warfare community.

 

[cb7893]

Well they should be able to score well on the womens PFT, guess they were bottom on the male standards.

Right along with an embarrassing number of their non-gender dysphoric male colleagues.

 

[usnabgo08]

Gonna have to disagree that this is the same thing as DADT. Only from the standpoint that DADT didn't involve servicemembers potentially being non-deployable for the better part of a year and receiving waivers for physical fitness standards and height and weight requirements. That's a little different animal. Maybe it's different in officer land, but I can tell you in the enlisted ranks special privileges are a big problem for morale and unit cohesiveness. If you are transgender and don't need accommodations, do you. But if you are constantly going to medical, don't have to PT and don't have the deploy there is going to be resentment, and that effects the mission. I also don't think we can hang our hat on the "readiness" question either. There are obviously many reasons, but you can't discount that the military deviating from being an apolitical organization has affected recruiting. I know the Army hasn't met their goals in almost a decade, and the Navy is only meeting them using "accounting" tricks.

Someone in a limited duty status would be under the same or similar deployability constraints, given LIMDU periods are typically 6-12 months…and the way things are going, there are far more of these for other medical reasons than for undergoing transition treatment/care. Resentment comes when individuals abuse the system for non-legitimate purposes, typically, to avoid deployments than use for legitimate purposes. Given that a transition treatment plan is reviewed by the CO, the timeline and deployments can be taken into consideration when approving the plan.

I don’t buy the view of the apolitical organization…politicians tend to make the topics political by bringing these things up and stirring the pot. The same thing happened with DADT…big hoopla about it, then nothing…it was also politicized. If we didn’t make these issues such a huge deal and saw where the facts led to first, then maybe the military would be casted in a better light. When it comes to physical fitness and height/weight standards…if individuals focused more on improving their own fitness, they wouldn’t have to worry about how they compare to others. I can’t speak for all of the other services but the Navy’s PFA is really a pass or fail event. Also, how many servicemembers are we talking in a given unit…probably less than a handful. Would there be some “complaints” about some of the accommodations…sure…but those that let their feet do the talking and have proven themselves, will have already won the support of their colleagues or enough to see their value/contributions.

Do you have any data/facts that show the lack of recruiting or retention is due to apolitical or transgender issues?

Not trying to change anyone’s opinion, but I just think we tend to try and find all the negative reasons or impacts before seeing where the implementation processes and facts lead to.

 

[Dr. Strange Love]

.
Change is inevitable … we will adapt
.

 

[hopefulmominla]

In the context of the academies I think the biggest concern is privacy and dignity issues in living quarters for all parties. I understand it is not uncommon for shower curtains etc to not be in place because they are removed for FRAWs, as well as some showers are group showers without privacy dividers. These types of things are vulnerabilities that could potentially lead to Cadets being uncomfortable conducting basic ADLs which can/could make the environment hostile. Hopefully some steps to beef up infrastructure and provide some privacy measures with showering and changing will be realistically considered for all cadets.

 

[nuensis]

JMPO but wouldn't it be almost impossible to actually go thru a full transition in an Academy? I am thinking about the hormones, body changes, surgeries, and generally missing class or training?

Not unlike dealing with PRK after-effects following surgery. You eventually get off LIMDU, go back to class, and deal with long term issues with Medical. If you need LIMDU again, that's a bridge to cross when you get there. If your grades are falling, it's time for boards. If you want to use your medical issues as ammunition for that fight, that's your prerogative, but medical is not a free pass. If you've missed too many graduation requirements, you fail out or roll back.

It takes quite a bit to get a med chit to miss class. I hobbled to class on crutches and a boot before. I had a 3-day LIMDU chit after PRK. After 3 days, I went to class half-blind and unable to actually read anything.

Training is the best time to do this. Not really a big problem to roll someone back a semester or year, since the roadblocks are purely administrative. After graduation, shore duty becomes the best time to have an elective surgery or a child. I don't see why this would be treated any differently from any other elective surgery the DoD allows. Whether the DoD should allow this as an elective surgery is a different question for the policymakers and politicians to whom the services are beholden.

Agreed. I think similar things were said a couple decades ago on the topic of integrating women into the military/combat jobs. About how that would negatively affect readiness, but then of course it didn't!

Crazy to think about: Just five years ago there were still surface ships that weren't fully gender integrated (i.e. 1-2 female officers in the wardroom but all-male enlisted crew). And of course it's still a fresh change for the submarine fleet, with the first group of women submariners about to reach command. I think everyone thinks about it as a problem we solved decades ago, but that's not true.

In the context of the academies I think the biggest concern is privacy and dignity issues in living quarters for all parties. I understand it is not uncommon for shower curtains etc to not be in place because they are removed for FRAWs, as well as some showers are group showers without privacy dividers. These types of things are vulnerabilities that could potentially lead to Cadets being uncomfortable conducting basic ADLs which can/could make the environment hostile. Hopefully some steps to beef up infrastructure and provide some privacy measures with showering and changing will be realistically considered for all cadets.

Honestly that's reflective of the living conditions in general in the military. Privacy is not really a priority. Or maybe that's just my bias coming from the Navy, where I'm at least grateful I don't have to hot rack.

I'm not going to repeat the words of others above, but I've seen this play out in the fleet, and really, it's not a big deal. And if it can work in the fleet, it can surely work at the academy.

 

[nuensis]

Back when we followed basic, common sense protocols, that person would not have been granted a secret clearance much less a TS/SCI. They also would not have been able to enter the military unless they hid that information from MEPS or DODMERB, which of course is a violation of the UCMJ.

Turns out for decades that only resulted in people successfully hiding that information from medical personnel, which resulted systemic mental health issues in the intelligence, nuclear weapons, and SOF communities that a litany of medical screenings, polygraphs, and reliability programs continued to fail to detect.

We would rather lose someone for a 6-12 month LIMDU or even a HUMS/CIP for a couple of years rather than have them bury something deep that comes up at the wrong time. At the tail end, the Navy gets a happy, healthy Sailor ready to work, which is a net win.

CWG-6 did a video series on their Facebook page about a year ago. We would lose a significant amount of talent and experience if we just sidelined everyone that had a mental health issue. We now recognize that we can help these personnel overcome these challenges instead of punishing them, and it's a win for everyone.

 

[USMC Crayons]

Turns out for decades that only resulted in people successfully hiding that information from medical personnel, which resulted systemic mental health issues in the intelligence, nuclear weapons, and SOF communities that a litany of medical screenings, polygraphs, and reliability programs continued to fail to detect.

We would rather lose someone for a 6-12 month LIMDU or even a HUMS/CIP for a couple of years rather than have them bury something deep that comes up at the wrong time. At the tail end, the Navy gets a happy, healthy Sailor ready to work, which is a net win.

CWG-6 did a video series on their Facebook page about a year ago. We would lose a significant amount of talent and experience if we just sidelined everyone that had a mental health issue. We now recognize that we can help these personnel overcome these challenges instead of punishing them, and it's a win for everyone.

I feel like your post (and some previous others) are not directly addressing the post in question, but pivoting away just a tad. Let's make it clear that anxiety and depression and other mild mental concerns are a completely different scenario that someone with a lifetime of suicidal ideation. Someone with the latter condition is not suited for the military and surely not suited to be an officer in the military, period full stop. Yes, we did it wrong in the past, and yes mental health has not been addressed properly (in the past, or currently for that matter) but that does not take away from the fact that severe mental issues are a scenario that might not ever be fixed.

 

[nuensis]

I wasn't addressing that post at all, just the statement I quoted.

You have no other characterization of this officer's mental health other than what is written in this article, nor do I. The result is that the officer continues to serve.

Is that officer on full duty or limited duty? Are medical restrictions in place? What exactly is that officer's billet, is it with an operational unit or a desk job? Does the unit deploy? It's just an internet article, I wouldn't read too much into it. For all we know she's transferring to HR and won't be a cyber officer for much longer. Is she even a cyber officer, or just someone who works for the G6?

 

[conrack]

I can see a lawsuit on the horizon... All it is going to take is a group of biological (can I still say that?) females to file a harassment suit because their personal privacy was taken away and they had to shower or bathe with a person of the opposite sex, and not by choice!

The Academies, or an isolated base or combat IMHO is not a place for anyone undergoing psychological treatment (I believe that it is standard for transitioning individuals to be undergoing psychological counseling), whether it be drugs for depression or pain meds for a surgical issue. Normally in the past I thought that mental health issues were disqualifying for military service? I guess the shortage in new members and overall strength has now eliminated that DQ.

Careful about calling trans people 'mentally ill', you will get banned for "offensive speech".

 

[Impulsive]

I never said that anyone transitioning or post operative had mental illness. I said they normally require psychological (mental health) counseling as part of transitioning. Many people who transition develop mental health issues or illnesses and that is a shame because many of those individuals have those issues because of others, not themselves, and as in Maj Jones case as soon as they get treatment, they improve their mental outlook.

It's a narrow band of what is a "mental illness" and what is a "mental health issue", and should always be determined by a mental health professional.

 

[SamAca10]

Can't say much in this situation about height and weight, only because most of the branches now have a pretty significant obesity problem. H/W apparently went out the door years ago. With that being said, how does one obtain and keep a TS/SCI clearance (which a cyber officer almost certainly has) when you have had depression and suicidal thoughts all of your life? Better yet, how did they pass DODMERB when they entered the Army? Depression with suicidal thoughts is auto DQ.

The clearance process doesn't care if you have PTSD, depression, or anxiety if you are dealing with it and seeking treatment. Clearance adjudicators actually prefer someone who suffers from these conditions to go seek treatment and deal with them. That's a positive. There are alcoholics with TS/SCI - the key difference is they seek treatment and abstain from alcohol.

Clearance Jobs Take on MH

Additionally, if you've served, you'll know that there are MANY Veterans with MH issues stemming from how they were treated in the service and BS they had to deal with. There are plenty of veterans who have documented MH VA disability ratings and hold an active clearance.

 

[SamAca10]

interesting...how does this contribute to the military's goals of defeating America's adversaries? Does it increase readiness and/or lethality?

With the rate recruitment and retention are in the trash, I think the military needs as many people as it can to sign up. I've been asked if I'd be willing to go back in a reserve capacity due to my cyber skills that I acquired post-service. More than happy to go back as a consultant and solve issues for a hefty price out of uniform.

 

[gonavy14]

The solution to declining recruitment and retention isn't to continue lowering standards. That will only make more qualified people want to get out or not join in the first place.