Exceptions to Gender-Based Grooming Standards?

[Eclipse]

For starters I thought the cadet was in your unit.  If he's not in your AOR, then I agree, not your problem.

[NIN]

For starters I thought the cadet was in your unit.  If he's not in your AOR, then I agree, not your problem.

This one has gone far enough afield of OP's original intent, but we've just spent time (hours?) discussing the authorization of one cadet to wear non-cadet uniforms for the purposes of religious accommodation.  ONE cadet out of SEVERAL HUNDRED in my wing.

Yet, I submit to you, the larger issues at hand are the larger plurality of cadets (and seniors) who don't wear the wrong uniform, but rather, wear the uniform wrongly.  Not just in my wing, but all over the country. And I'm not talking just the egregious "berets and campaign hats crap that we just made up on the spot" wrongly, I'm talking "trying to wear the uniform correctly per 39-1, with no other modifications, and failing miserably."


This is not a CAP-Talk specific issue, BTW, focusing on the .01% exception rather than the > 30% rule.  But it is indicative of how we're happy to pounce on the ONE guy who in someone's estimation "is wrong," but at the same time we (the organizational "we") can't be bothered to address and enforce the rules on the many members who show up with bad haircuts, no shave, wrong colored t-shirts, insignia all over the map, out of weight standards, etc.

Its almost like "we can gang up on this one guy, but heaven forbid we tell a bunch of folks they're wrong."

[Eclipse]

I dunno, I call out the organization as a whole, and the leadership, specifically, for the lack of will and
command imperative in that regard on a regular basis, only to be told, specifically, by those leaders that
they don't feel it is within their mandate to get involved.

I have had to deal with these exception issues on a larger scale, and much more often, as I'm sure you
have, then the average member who participates primarily at their home squadron.

For the most part these "exceptions", approved or otherwise, tend not to bubble up until an encampment,
NCSA, SAREx or similar activity where the member is away from their home leadership and any "allowances"
that leadership has chosen to make outside actual authority, and then it's a urination match between
parents and leaders because some unit CC couldn't be bothered (etc.) to either get things properly approved,
or explain the program properly.

[JeffDG]

For the most part these "exceptions", approved or otherwise, tend not to bubble up until an encampment,
NCSA, SAREx or similar activity where the member is away from their home leadership and any "allowances"
that leadership has chosen to make outside actual authority, and then it's a urination match between
parents and leaders because some unit CC couldn't be bothered (etc.) to either get things properly approved,
or explain the program properly.

That's actually not exclusive to "unofficial" accommodations.  Let's take the case at hand in the OP.

Let's say they route it through the CoC and NHQ grants a waiver for this cadet to wear the female uniform, including grooming standards.  Now, I'm doing sign-in for a SAREX, checking IDs and such, and see someone in BDUs show up who is, obviously, outside of male grooming standards but the ID card says "male".  Now, I'm not privy to the waiver granted, nor should I (or even if I'm the IC) be, it's really none of my business 99.9% of the time. 

What kind of documentation should be presented to the mission staff at that point?  The cadet would be entitled to wear the BDU uniform as presented, and approved by NHQ (as the OPR has the authority to waive regulations when appropriate), but if I'm the IC, I'm going to want to see some evidence of that (because I'll get you good money the issue gets kicked up to the IC eventually, because nobody's going to have a clue what to do!)

[Storm Chaser]

Unless there was a legal gender change, I don't see why NHQ would make such accommodations.

[Eclipse]

Now, I'm not privy to the waiver granted, nor should I (or even if I'm the IC) be, it's really none of my business 99.9% of the time.

Disagree - as IC or member otherwise in command or in charge, it's incumbent upon you in insure that all members
are qualified to participate, which includes their being in proper uniform.   It's not unreasonable for a member expecting this
sort of accommodation to have to present the documentation of the waiver to those in charge.  Presumably there are grooming
issues to be addressed as well.

You don't need, necessarily, to know why, the accommodation was granted, but yo need to know that it was, and the boundaries of it.
"Cadet Simpson is hereby granted a waiver to 39-1 in that he is allowed to forgo the requirements to be clean shaven, and will
wear the blue field uniform to any activity where other cadets are required to wear the woodland camouflage BDU."

What kind of documentation should be presented to the mission staff at that point? 

The letter of waiver or other approval from NHQ, which should also be attached to any applications
for activities like encampments, etc.

Since all cadets require F32s for all activities now, it should be attached to that when submitted.

[Chappie]

If I had a female cadet who couldn't wear pants for some religious reason (can anybody point me at a specific religion that disallows pants on women, BTW? I keep hearing about this religion in a very non specific way. I'd be curious to understand more.), when it came time to wear BDUs, I would probably coordinate some kind of policy exception that put her in a polo shirt & grey skirt or something like that.

There are mennonites, Brahmanites, Orthodox Jew, and the more common specific sects of pentacostal christians.  There are a minority of Catholics that believe as well.

There are definitely those groups.  They interpret a passage in Deut. 22:5 that reads: "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." as women should not wear pants.   I was an Associate Pastor in a church back in the early 70's for a very short time.   Did not last long.   My wife wore pant suits to work and the Senior Pastor kept harping on this (as well as her pierced ears)...a could not and would not submit to their from of "Biblical legalism".

[NIN]

The letter of waiver or other approval from NHQ, which should also be attached to any applications
for activities like encampments, etc.

Since all cadets require F32s for all activities now, it should be attached to that when submitted.

No.

[Cadetter]

If I had a female cadet who couldn't wear pants for some religious reason (can anybody point me at a specific religion that disallows pants on women, BTW? I keep hearing about this religion in a very non specific way. I'd be curious to understand more.), when it came time to wear BDUs, I would probably coordinate some kind of policy exception that put her in a polo shirt & grey skirt or something like that.

There are mennonites, Brahmanites, Orthodox Jew, and the more common specific sects of pentacostal christians.  There are a minority of Catholics that believe as well.

There are definitely those groups.  They interpret a passage in Deut. 22:5 that reads: "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." as women should not wear pants.   I was an Associate Pastor in a church back in the early 70's for a very short time.   Did not last long.   My wife wore pant suits to work and the Senior Pastor kept harping on this (as well as her pierced ears)...a could not and would not submit to their from of "Biblical legalism".

Some of my family's best friends felt that way. Were shocked that I would wear pants.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Not a biblical scholar...but when those passages were written...I don't think ANYONE wore pants...

[Cadetter]

From what I've studied, you are correct...

[JeffDG]

What kind of documentation should be presented to the mission staff at that point? 

The letter of waiver or other approval from NHQ, which should also be attached to any applications
for activities like encampments, etc.

Since all cadets require F32s for all activities now, it should be attached to that when submitted.

Good points.  For me, I would accept a letter from the Squadron/CC clearly stating that a waiver of such-and-such from NHQ was on file at the squadron.  I tend to give the "Integrity" thing some weight, and if they're willing to sign their name to it, so be it.

[Eclipse]

Fair enough I probably would too though depending on who that was, I'd probably trust but verify.

[a2capt]

Bryan Bowers - The Scotsman

[Wispin]

I've been lurking for a few years and never made an account on CAPTalk, but this topic caught my attention.

First, CadetFaith, let me start by saying that you aren't the only one that's had this issue in CAP. I've been in CAP for a little over 3 years now, as a Cadet recently-turned Senior Member. I'm transgender myself, and have been seeing a psychologist and endocrinologist for treatment. That, obviously, creates the issue that my body will be changing in some pretty radical ways over the next year.

Service is important to me (as I'm sure it is with you, as you mention your interest in the military and CAP activities) and I've been heavily involved with ES, SAR and DR, both in CAP and elsewhere. Right now, I serve as the ES officer for my squadron. The idea of transitioning within the context of a CAP squadron bothers me for several reasons, not the least of which because I live in a religious area - it's not that I fear discrimination for myself, but rather that I don't want to negatively impact the ability of other cadets to experience CAP because of any bigotry their parents might hold, for instance. I don't view that as fair to those cadets (or prospective ones), and I want to avoid harming my squadron. It seems pretty horrible to have to think that way, and perhaps I shouldn't be so forgiving of the horrid behaviors of others, but it is what it is. Maybe someday in the future it'll all work out, but sadly I think our generation is going to have to be the trailblazers on this one.

One of the reasons I became a senior member rather than remaining a cadet is, in fact, grooming standards. The corporate uniforms provide a neat way to dodge grooming standards.. but what I didn't realize, and what might be your saving grace, is that the corporate style uniforms are technically permitted for use by cadets. It's obviously something that you're going to have to work out with your squadron - and, as you doubtless know, a tough conversation to have. It's a conversation I'm not looking forward to having with my commanders, but one I'm sure will have to come up sooner rather than later.

If I had any advice for you, it would be to definitely see a psychologist who is experienced in gender identity issues. It has nothing to do with "diagnosing" you with a disorder - in fact, the new DSM-5 takes a bit of a different stance on the topic - and everything to do with helping you figure yourself out. If you decide that transitioning is what you want, they can help you along the path. It's a hard one, to be sure .. and the earlier you figure yourself out, the better off you'll be. Finally, if the psychologist seems like he has an objective or agenda - to convince you that you are or are not really transgender - run away. Like any other medical professional, they work for you .. and you have the right to fire them. There are other fish in the sea, and this is an important aspect of your life. In a situation that's already terrifying and requires immense amounts of bravery to confront, the last thing you want is yet another person attempting to influence you. You'll probably get enough of that from your parents and peers. It's not a very safe world out there for trans people at the moment, either, and violence and murder happen to us at an astronomically higher rate than the general population. Just be careful and keep your head up. "Semper Vigilans" are good watchwords to live by.

Unfortunately, unlike more enlightened NATO militaries like that of Canada and the United Kingdom, the U.S. military doesn't permit transgender people to serve. You can pretend you're cisgender and get in, but stop and think for a second how bad that dysphoria might be - if you're experiencing it getting haircuts right now, for CAP, for example .. and think very carefully about whether or not it's worth it to you. Personally, I've resolved to dedicate my life to service, and I've found that there are other ways to do so and make just as much of an impact.

Here's an interesting book written by a female-to-male transgender CAP cadet. It's a bit of a different perspective than what you and I will face, since CAP's culture encourages masculinity (obviously), but it's still a good read. (http://books.google.com/books?id=0oMNAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) Ultimately, and sadly however, his decision is to quit CAP. I've heard a story or two of other trans people choosing the same thing, and it breaks my heart, because I love CAP and don't want to leave. I don't see too many other options though, unless there's some changes made to make it easier to stick around - or I work up the courage and get exceedingly lucky with my squadron. Depending on where you live, how big your squadron is, and what your commanders are like .. you might have better (or worse) luck. It's something of a grab bag, I think.

On an unrelated comment, I'm pretty pleased thus far at the reaction to this thread .. it's not at all as harsh as I was expecting from such a topic. Thank you all for that.

[Private Investigator]

Wispin, welcome to CAP Talk and thank you for sharing. 

[Eclipse]

One of the reasons I became a senior member rather than remaining a cadet is, in fact, grooming standards. The corporate uniforms provide a neat way to dodge grooming standards.. but what I didn't realize, and what might be your saving grace, is that the corporate style uniforms are technically permitted for use by cadets.

The corporate uniforms do not provide an avenue to "dodge" grooming standards - the standards are different.

Absent a waiver or other accommodation, cadets must be over 18 and ineligible for the USAF style uniforms due to
being unable to meet weight standards, not simply as a personal option.

Further, regardless of uniform choice, cadets are required to meet the USAF standards of grooming.

CAPM 39-1 Page 6
1.2.3.2. Cadets will wear the USAF-style uniforms as outlined in this manual as a key
component of their cadet experience. However, cadets over age 18 who are not eligible to wear the
USAF-style uniforms due to not meeting weight standards are authorized to wear all Corporate-style
uniform combinations, except the Corporate Working Uniform since it does not allow for wear of rank
insignia.

CAPM 39-1 Page 20

3.3. Corporate-style Uniform and Member's Wearing Civilian Attire at CAP Events Grooming
Standards. Members must comply with the requirements of this paragraph and sub-paragraphs to wear
the Corporate-style uniform. Additionally, even if not in Corporate-style uniform and wearing civilian
attire, members are expected to comply with these guidelines when at CAP events or on official CAP
duty. Cadets wearing Corporate-style uniforms are required to meet USAF-style uniform grooming standards.

[NIN]

On an unrelated comment, I'm pretty pleased thus far at the reaction to this thread .. it's not at all as harsh as I was expecting from such a topic. Thank you all for that.

Occasionally, we have the ability to be smart, funny, respectful, factual and informative.. and all in the same thread.

Its only when people lose sight of the overarching core values of the organization we ostensibly belong to , respect being the biggie, that the mods & the community rise up... LOL.

[MajorM]

Our school district is working through this issue right now. Much of the legal discussion is not settled. The challenge, legally, is that DOE's Office of Civil Rights (who sets guidance for Title IX) has issued dear colleague letters on the issue. OCR has said they will consider transgender discrimination claims under the purview of gender discrimination. This is significant. Homosexuality is not a protected federal class and thus is not applicable to Title IX. But by treating it as a gender issue it does potentially become a Title IX concern. This does not mean the law is settled. Far from it... It simply means that OCR will not dismiss complaints and will consider investigation.

Federal funding brings with it many strings, and one is gender parity under Title IX. There may be other potential avenues, but IX seems the most likely.

Note that there is little case law on this at present. Only the Ninth Circuit has issued anything on it, but that guidance is only applicable to its circuit.

[PHall]

The Ninth is the only circuit to rule on it because the other circuits haven't had a case reach them to rule on yet.