Inappropriate CAP Cadet Survey

[TheSkyHornet]

In squadrons where there may be as many as 5 CP specialists, I would think they would all receive the same email, not just the CC and CDC.

This is totally separate from the topic at hand, but why would you think that? The purpose of the email from NHQ was to notify commanders so that they could direct cadets and parents to check their email and take the survey. It was not to push the survey itself out. I'm honestly curious, why would you expect national to send a notice to every CP rated member?

I guess it may be fair to say that squadron CC's have the responsibility of passing along the information from NHQ to the appropriate personnel in each squadron, such as the cadet programs specialists and character development officers.

Part of the CP specialty at the squadron level is to train to become a better leader and mentor of cadets, which is described by CAP as a purpose of the CP specialty track. I would think that squadron officers engaged in cadet programs specialties would be in the should-know category as to national efforts to improve the CAP Cadet Program so that the specialists can help to better their own squadron's cadet corps. I would expect all of the cadet programs specialists in my squadron to be aware of national's efforts to strive for improvement, including if it involves cadet surveys. What is the survey content and how can we use it as the squadron level?

Maybe this comes from my belief that composite squadrons aren't always structured per CAPR 20-1, nor managed as such. There are often squadrons where the CC is also the CDC, or the CDC is relatively absent, and junior officers are tasked with managing the squadron's cadet corps. If this information isn't passed down to those running the cadet program, whether they're the CDC or not, it's a break down in the communication process. At this time, I don't know if any of my cadets ever got wind of this survey, because I was not in a position to pass this information along to them. This could be a further breakdown in the chain of command where a CC is not passing along this email or assumes that cadet programs officers would know of its existence and deal with it themselves.

I'd be curious to know why you don't think cadet programs specialists should be included in NHQ-initiated emails about cadet surveys for the betterment of the CAP Cadet Program.

[THRAWN]

We can start with the fact that they are not commanders or deputy commanders....

[Ned]

Hmmm.  Be careful what you wish for.

We literally send out dozens of emails a day that concern "The betterment of the cadet program."  Do you really want us to turn on the spam machine and send them to you?   

If you would like the "state of the art"  CP information, you should subscribe to the RSS Feed to the Cadet Blog (or follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook), or visit us at the The Proving Grounds where we post the latest draft CP materials, white papers, etc.

We try very, very hard to be open and transparent as we develop and administer the CP.  And I actually think we do a pretty good job at it.  We routinely send our draft regs / updates out to the field for comment, revise the materials based on the comments, and then get units to beta-test the improvements before making things final.

Thank you for the work you do supporting our cadets.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

[Storm Chaser]

Maybe in the future, surveys that cadets receive can be sent to the Cadet Programs specialists in addition to the cadets, because I'm really lost at what occurred here. I have heard nothing of it until reading the forum.

Agreed. I'm a Group Commander and Cadet Programs Officer and, until I read this thread, I hadn't heard of this survey either.

You may want to check the email address you have listed in eservices it was sent out on Sept 25th to that address. (the email is below)

I rechecked my e-mail, including the spam folder, and I got nothing.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Hmmm.  Be careful what you wish for.

We literally send out dozens of emails a day that concern "The betterment of the cadet program."  Do you really want us to turn on the spam machine and send them to you?   

If you would like the "state of the art"  CP information, you should subscribe to the RSS Feed to the Cadet Blog (or follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook), or visit us at the The Proving Grounds where we post the latest draft CP materials, white papers, etc.

We try very, very hard to be open and transparent as we develop and administer the CP.  And I actually think we do a pretty good job at it.  We routinely send our draft regs / updates out to the field for comment, revise the materials based on the comments, and then get units to beta-test the improvements before making things final.

Thank you for the work you do supporting our cadets.

Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

I would actually like that very much.


It's hard enough to stay on top of the occasional changes. I'd LOVE to be copied on anything sent in general direction of cadets, because when they have a question, they won't email NHQ, they'll ask me at the meeting.

[Spam]

Ned / all:

Thanks for your patience and your inputs (I've been absent dealing with work, family stuff, unit stuff, an ELT alert last week, etc.).  I have been playing phone tag with NHQ to chat with Curt, and will try again.


There's a bit of a gap, IMHO, between the new federal mandates on the services to widen their accommodation of represented groups (e.g. Pvt. Bradley Manning - although I'm sure there are better examples out there than him), and CAP's requirements to reasonably accommodate protected groups as defined in our regs and under current federal law. I don't see this gap being easily put to rest on this discussion group. However, I begin to see how this mismatch could have produced an honestly intended survey that, in my view at least, went too far afield in asking minor volunteers the same sort of identity questions intended for adult recruits, and without parental notification in some cases. In my specific case, that disability question hit emotionally due to my past experience with an autistic son, and I again apologize if my tone went over the line, or triggered anyone else to do so.


Constructive suggestions:
I'd like to respectfully suggest that, going forward together, such survey tools and assessments be posted in draft format on the Proving Grounds, with a notice on the eServices page, for team review. There might be blind spots where members might suggest additional metrics or improvements not apparent to the CP team or to a select upper leadership team. I've been greatly encouraged over the past few years by the CP team's use of the Proving Grounds, and their willingness to seek continuous improvement, in the spirit of transparency to the membership and parents. I've even seen a couple of my past inputs adopted in subsequent regs, to my surprise.

Posting such pending items on the Grounds, coupled with a publicly posted notice on the eServices home page, should avoid blind siding the truly active members who log into eServices regularly and would view the notice. Coupled with avoiding sending future assessment instruments to cadets with no parent emails listed, that would seem to solve the notification issue completely.


As the OP, I'd like to thank you, Ned, for your time in responding.


V/R,
Spam

[Wispin]

As a transgender person and a 3-year cadet, I don't think including a gender-nonspecific option is offensive at all. I think it might be important to know who identifies as gender non-conforming (transgender or otherwise) within the organization. Since as we've seen, there are probably more than a few. In fact, one person I have a great deal of respect for is Arin Andrews (a female-to-male transgender person) who spent time as a cadet himself.

While I don't think it's offensive, I don't think it's necessarily effective to ask the question in this format. I think, from a statistical perspective (which is what I have to imagine that this was for), it's an ineffective exercise because only around 0.5% - 1% of the US population identifies as transgender or gender non-conforming (out of the 3% - 5% that identify as LGBTQ). It's unlikely that any response from individuals on this particular survey would be statistically significant. To be honest, when I was younger (when under 18 especially) I would have been far too paranoid to select such an option on a survey, primarily for fears cited earlier in this thread. Is this anonymous? Am I protected? What if XYZ person sees/finds out/etc. These are genuine fears for someone who maybe lives with unaccepting parents or family, or in an area of the country that tends to be more hostile (which unfortunately is still most of it).

Anyway, that's my two cents. I hope a different perspective is helpful to this discussion. I definitely think NHQ should explore regulations and policies surrounding trans* and gender non-conforming cadets, but it's definitely a hard topic. My only hope is that they don't make such decisions in a vacuum and consult with & consider all parties that could be affected by their decisions.

[Storm Chaser]

If you don't mind my asking, do you wear the uniform for your biological gender? Or has NHQ made some type of accommodation for you?

[TheSkyHornet]

If you don't mind my asking, do you wear the uniform for your biological gender? Or has NHQ made some type of accommodation for you?

To chime in on this...

I think that's an interesting point you brought up: accommodations. What is considered an accommodation? Wearing the uniform of the opposite gender, or being authorized to wear the uniform of the gender you identify with?

If there's a male cadet that wants to wear the female uniform, we don't allow that. And if they say "I'm female," what is it about them that identifies them as a female outside of them saying (or believing/feeling/what have you) they are? It's a very slippery slope when it comes to the discrimination side of things, and I do believe that are federal legal implications on this if it goes the wrong way.

That being said, the military has discussed quite a bit, and we even saw the conversation pop up on CAP Talk, gender-neutral uniforms. Why should females and males wear a different cover, or belt, or blouse? It's really just tradition. That's pretty much it. In the modern era, since most military jobs are open to both genders, and all of CAP's positions are open to all genders, there isn't a "need" for a different uniform for opposing genders. So, if we want to keep the different uniforms in place for tradition, so be it, but recognize that that's the reason.

Adding to that, there are separate grooming standards for males and females. The military really hasn't moved from that. However, there are certain questions that have really never been clearly answered. What about women who have excessive facial hair (not peach fuzz, but that mustache or goatee growing in)? What about women who want to buzz their heads, or even shave them clean for that matter? In some circumstances, men's chest hair shouldn't stick out from the top of their undershirt. But there's no rule for women on that (if they were to have that "issue"). Women aren't required to shave their legs or arm pits for PT. The military, and CAP, have come out with a blanket statement that doesn't clearly answer those questions, but gives an answer to our social norms: "Professional appearance."

If someone says "I was born male, but I identify as female" and they grow their hair out, keep it cut off the shoulders, wear the female uniform as it is supposed to be worn, groom to female standards as we would culturally accept it, the only question remaining is "Is this professional?"

This is not an easy discussion to have. We can most certainly get some strong opinions on the topic, and I have my owns, but that doesn't put it into writing "These are CAP's regulations on this matter." 50 years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Things are different today. I think it needs to be addressed, and it needs to be done so in a professional, rational manner.

[Wispin]

To answer your question, Storm Chaser, I actually don't currently visit any meetings. My transition (and beginning to present as female all the time) was combined with a move across the country, so while I'm still technically a cadet, I'm not actively involved at any squadron at this time.

I'd like to join a local squadron again, but I've decided to wait until I have my legal name & gender marker changed on my identity documents, which should be within the next month or two. This will make it easier to avoid any issues.

I also intend to send an email to (someone, as yet undetermined - any suggestions?) at NHQ to inquire about any extra steps I should take to remain within the good graces of regulation and avoid any problems.

SkyHornet, I think, from my perspective.. I present as female. Just looking at me, you'd likely not think twice about the fact that I am. While my identity documents say 'Male' and the TSA gets really confused by me, I am female. What you're asking sounds a little deeper though - if you're asking what I think you are, it's when should we believe someone that says they're transgender? I think in the vast, vast majority of cases, by the time someone (if they're over 3-5 years of age) says something about being trans*, they've almost certainly thought it through to the extent that they are completely dead-certain of that fact. It can be pretty traumatic to be open about yourself, so it's something people tend to avoid until they feel they don't have any other choice. On the scientific side, there is mounting evidence that the construct of transgender peoples' brains are actually closely aligned with that of the gender the identify as.

Regarding "when is someone officially X gender?" .. well, it's not very clear. Only 30-35% of people who identify as trans* go through any surgical procedures at all.

On the concept of trans* military service, there are actually over 15,000 servicemen and women that serve in the U.S. military that are transgender but are presenting as their biological genders in order to serve. I nearly became one of them - and I'd still like to serve (my dream job is as a geospatial intelligence analyst) in the future, but unfortunately as we're the only NATO country that bars transgender persons from service currently, I won't be able to do that just yet. This is a great article on the topic: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/transgender-military-service

It really is interesting, because I think that female-to-male cadets & others might have a bit of an easier time with this. Traditionally, a more masculine expression by a female in a military-oriented culture is acceptable - even in CAP, with few exceptions, females can wear 'male' uniform items. It's a little ironic, but even though the amount of male-to-female and female-to-male trans* people are 50-50, cultural perceptions are skewed.

Anyway - if I walked up to a squadron and tried to rejoin right now, I'm not really sure what would happen. Do I, as someone presenting as female and with hair down my back, need to cut it to a high-and-tight? That wouldn't seem very reasonable to me.

All things considered, it's that unknown that needs to ultimately be clarified, and as trans* acceptance becomes more common, trans* people will start to feel more comfortable trying to be themselves in environments like CAP.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions anyone has regarding my perspective, and I appreciate the respect I've seen here thus far.

[THRAWN]

To answer your question, Storm Chaser, I actually don't currently visit any meetings. My transition (and beginning to present as female all the time) was combined with a move across the country, so while I'm still technically a cadet, I'm not actively involved at any squadron at this time.

I'd like to join a local squadron again, but I've decided to wait until I have my legal name & gender marker changed on my identity documents, which should be within the next month or two. This will make it easier to avoid any issues.

I also intend to send an email to (someone, as yet undetermined - any suggestions?) at NHQ to inquire about any extra steps I should take to remain within the good graces of regulation and avoid any problems.

SkyHornet, I think, from my perspective.. I present as female. Just looking at me, you'd likely not think twice about the fact that I am. While my identity documents say 'Male' and the TSA gets really confused by me, I am female.

It really is interesting, because I think that female-to-male cadets & others might have a bit of an easier time with this. Traditionally, a more masculine expression by a female in a military-oriented culture is acceptable - even in CAP, with few exceptions, females can wear 'male' uniform items. It's a little ironic, but even though the amount of male-to-female and female-to-male trans* people are 50-50, cultural perceptions are skewed.

Anyway - if I walked up to a squadron and tried to rejoin right now, I'm not really sure what would happen. Do I, as someone presenting as female and with hair down my back, need to cut it to a high-and-tight? That wouldn't seem very reasonable to me.

All things considered, it's that unknown that needs to ultimately be clarified, and as trans* acceptance becomes more common, trans* people will start to feel more comfortable trying to be themselves in environments like CAP.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions anyone has regarding my perspective, and I appreciate the respect I've seen here thus far.

Good info. But just a point of clarification: are you a cadet? Here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19381.msg356972#msg356972 you state otherwise.

[Wispin]

Sorry, no - to be clear, I'm not currently an active cadet. I didn't mean to imply that I was, merely that I had been one for three years. I was in the process of becoming a senior member, but I allowed my membership to lapse a few months ago due to my move (I was still officially a cadet at that time, as I never finished processing the paperwork required to make the change to a flight officer). And in any case, I turn 21 next month, so I will likely rejoin as a senior member directly.

[Ned]

Wispin,

Feel free to contact Curt LaFond or his sidekick Jo at the NHQ Cadet Programs shop for any information and clarifications on current or possible future policies.  Several other trans cadets already have called us to discuss the issues.

And again,

[T]he transgender discussion deserves its own thread.  (I think we have indeed discussed it elsewhere, but I have to get up in six hours to catch a flight and I'm being too lazy to search.)  It should have its own thread for two reasons:  One, it's important that we get it right after an open and transparent process before we make any changes to existing policies and regulations.  And two, because it really has nothing to do with the CEAP program (except as it may discover that TG troops are underserved by encampment.)

[Flying Pig]

We have transgendered males (guys who appear female) get arrested often..... and make an attempt to get booked in and housed in the female pods.   They are always surprised when it doesn't happen.

[PHall]

We have transgendered males (guys who appear female) get arrested often..... and make an attempt to get booked in and housed in the female pods.   They are always surprised when it doesn't happen.

I take it they haven't gone under the knife yet.

[Flying Pig]

Even those who have end up in protective/segregated custody.  If you ever want to witness natures food chain, spend a couple years working in a prison.   When you take off all the fluff, people aren't to far off from the animals roaming the Serengeti looking for their next meal. 

[LSThiker]

transgendered males (guys who appear female)

I would like to point out that just because they are men that appear female, it does not mean they are transgender.  Cross-dressing is different than transgender as cross dressers are usually heterosexual that dress as the other gender but still identify as their biological sex. 

Even those who have end up in protective/segregated custody.  If you ever want to witness natures food chain, spend a couple years working in a prison.   When you take off all the fluff, people aren't to far off from the animals roaming the Serengeti looking for their next meal. 

That probably speaks less to the issue of transgender, but more to the issue of how our prison systems are conducted.  That is of course outside the scope of CAPTalk and really no clear answer to it. 

[Flying Pig]

Good to know..... 

[Garibaldi]

We have transgendered males (guys who appear female) get arrested often..... and make an attempt to get booked in and housed in the female pods.   They are always surprised when it doesn't happen.

I can only imagine what gets asked at intake...

"Uh, yeah, I identify as female and as such demand I be housed with the female population"
"OK. Do you have a ____?"
"Um...yeah..."
"Sorry. Not gonna happen."
"But..."
"Nope! Cut it off and we'll talk."