Sooner or later we will have to face the issue of how to treat the membership of transgenders. Should they be enrolled according to their biological sex or their gender choice?
Note that in California, and perhaps other states, discrimination against transgenders is unlawful. Apparently this law also covers non-profits like the CAP. In short, an individual is entitled to wear the uniform of his or her GENDER CHOICE.
In addition, an organization is required to prevent harassment based upon gender choice.
http://transgenderlawcenter.org/issues/know-your-rights/faq-the-gender-nondiscrimination-act (http://transgenderlawcenter.org/issues/know-your-rights/faq-the-gender-nondiscrimination-act)
Also note that, for example, the Girl Scouts have accepted boys that identify as girls under certain circumstances.
"Placement of transgender youth is handled on a case-by-case basis, with the welfare and best interests of the child and the members of the troop/group in question a top priority," the organization said on its website. "That said, if the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/02/transgender-girl-scout-stands-up-to-bully-who-wouldnt-buy-cookies-from-a-boy-in-a-dress (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/02/transgender-girl-scout-stands-up-to-bully-who-wouldnt-buy-cookies-from-a-boy-in-a-dress)
Also the FAA no longer includes transgender as a "mental illness"
http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/01/to-faa-transgender-pilots-no-longer-have-a-mental-illness/ (http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/01/to-faa-transgender-pilots-no-longer-have-a-mental-illness/)
Quote from: RNOfficer on February 03, 2016, 10:23:14 PM
Sooner or later we will have to face the issue of how to treat the membership of transexuals (aka transgenders). Should they be enrolled according to their biological sex or their gender choice?
I suppose you know this, but transgender and transsexual are two rather different terms.
Thank you for pointing out that I misused "transexual".
http://www.medicaldaily.com/what-difference-between-transsexual-and-transgender-facebooks-new-version-its-complicated-271389 (http://www.medicaldaily.com/what-difference-between-transsexual-and-transgender-facebooks-new-version-its-complicated-271389)
topic title should be Re: "How to handle TRANSGENDER Cadet: biology or choice?" OP has been modified appropriately.
We've had several threads on this sensitive and potential divisive subject. And CAP has multiple members (both cadet and senior) who identify as transgender. Current CAP policy is to use the "legal gender" of the member, based on the state of residence. That policy is currently under active review and may (like any CAP policy) change.
It is certainly a topic worthy of discussion. I'd ask all participants to be respectful of the views of others and keep in mind our Core Value of Respect.
Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
Quote from: Ned on February 03, 2016, 11:51:43 PM
It is certainly a topic worthy of discussion. I'd ask all participants to be respectful of the views of others and keep in mind our Core Value of Respect.
My spidey sense feels the need to echo this.
Be constructive, please.
I can see one of the biggest issues is where do we place transgender cadets at Encampment? I know many parents would be freaked if they found out their 13 year-old daughter is going to be sleeping in the same room as a 17 year-old male-that-identifies-as-female.
If we isolate these cadets, isn't that hazing?
If we bunk them with cadets they physically match, regardless of their identification, isn't that hazing?
If we bunk them with cadets they don't physically match, but identify as, what problems with crop up there? Hazing? Legal issues? Mass withdrawal of cadets from the program?
I don't mean any disrespect to those of you that are Transgender, but these are RL concerns.
Hence the current policy of.......what are the legally identified as.
Not the worlds best answer as each state handles things differently....but at least that way it is "Someone Else's Problem".
As for what other parents now about.......and what they will get freaked out about. I don't really care. I got too much to worry about then other parent's prejudices. I mean I know that there are some parents out there that may be freaked out if if little Johnny or Jenny are bunking with African Americans.
Yes I know.....this is the 21st century and all.....but it is still out there.
And I just ain't got time for that.
YMMV
Quote from: lordmonar on February 04, 2016, 05:51:52 AM
And I just ain't got time for that.
Could not help it but:
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starpolar/images/6/6b/Notime.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150225125846)
Quote from: LSThiker on February 04, 2016, 06:25:45 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 04, 2016, 05:51:52 AM
And I just ain't got time for that.
Could not help it but:
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starpolar/images/6/6b/Notime.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150225125846)
That was what I was thinking about when I typed it!
10 points to Griffendor!
Let me begin by stating that I support the LGBT community. I also support every Cadet out there. Even if a Cadet is not a part of my Squadron, if they need help I am here for them. I will always strive to treat them with dignity and respect.
That being said. Like others out there I am concerned about loss of Cadets, parental fallout, and a sh**storm of paperwork. I don;t want to be face to face with Wing Legal. I am completely unsure what to do for an over night event. To force a Trangender cadet to bunk with males when they identify as female could be emotionally damaging to them. But bunking them with the females would make the others uncomfortable. Isolating said Cadet could be called an act of hazing.
I am not sure that the regulations we have at the moment are appropriate for these situations. But I am not sure what a good solution would be.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Let me begin by stating that I support the LGBT community. I also support every Cadet out there. Even if a Cadet is not a part of my Squadron, if they need help I am here for them. I will always strive to treat them with dignity and respect.
That being said. Like others out there I am concerned about loss of Cadets, parental fallout, and a sh**storm of paperwork. I don;t want to be face to face with Wing Legal. I am completely unsure what to do for an over night event. To force a Trangender cadet to bunk with males when they identify as female could be emotionally damaging to them. But bunking them with the females would make the others uncomfortable. Isolating said Cadet could be called an act of hazing.
I am not sure that the regulations we have at the moment are appropriate for these situations. But I am not sure what a good solution would be.
At the end of the day, CAP Regs say your legal birth gender is your CAP-recognized gender. That's the end of it for us at the ground level. It applies to senior members as well as cadets. If a cadet's parents have an issue with it, they can take it to group, wing, regional, and NHQ. We don't make the rules.
Yes, we can have an opinion, but it's not our place to state our opinions to the cadets or parents. Follow the regs or find another organization that accommodates your beliefs. It doesn't matter what your thoughts on it are. You signed a contract that says you can be kicked out for not following protocols.
Don't put yourself into a situation where it even becomes hazing, and telling someone to sit off to the side and not participate until they wear the proper uniform and meet the proper grooming standards isn't hazing of any sorts; it's enforcement of the rules. They get bunked with their gender. And if you want to make special accommodations and they turn them down, that's their choice. Until the regulations change, we follow the ones that currently exist. If there's a problem, take it up the chain of command.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on February 04, 2016, 03:24:32 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Let me begin by stating that I support the LGBT community. I also support every Cadet out there. Even if a Cadet is not a part of my Squadron, if they need help I am here for them. I will always strive to treat them with dignity and respect.
That being said. Like others out there I am concerned about loss of Cadets, parental fallout, and a sh**storm of paperwork. I don;t want to be face to face with Wing Legal. I am completely unsure what to do for an over night event. To force a Trangender cadet to bunk with males when they identify as female could be emotionally damaging to them. But bunking them with the females would make the others uncomfortable. Isolating said Cadet could be called an act of hazing.
I am not sure that the regulations we have at the moment are appropriate for these situations. But I am not sure what a good solution would be.
At the end of the day, CAP Regs say your legal birth gender is your CAP-recognized gender. That's the end of it for us at the ground level. It applies to senior members as well as cadets. If a cadet's parents have an issue with it, they can take it to group, wing, regional, and NHQ. We don't make the rules.
Yes, we can have an opinion, but it's not our place to state our opinions to the cadets or parents. Follow the regs or find another organization that accommodates your beliefs. It doesn't matter what your thoughts on it are. You signed a contract that says you can be kicked out for not following protocols.
Don't put yourself into a situation where it even becomes hazing, and telling someone to sit off to the side and not participate until they wear the proper uniform and meet the proper grooming standards isn't hazing of any sorts; it's enforcement of the rules. They get bunked with their gender. And if you want to make special accommodations and they turn them down, that's their choice. Until the regulations change, we follow the ones that currently exist. If there's a problem, take it up the chain of command.
What regs say that? I just looked in 39-2 and the only mention of gender is that it needs to be shown on your state issued ID.
"Just follow the regulations" or "I was just following orders" is a sure fire way to a lawsuit and/ or a criminal investigation. We are not bound to follow illegal or immoral orders. Given the current attitudes of the Supreme Court of the United States and most State Legislation, we could get into come serious issues here. Given the legal climate, above mentioned, these "regulations" or "orders" could be defined as both illegal and immoral.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 03:30:46 PM
"Just follow the regulations" or "I was just following orders" is a sure fire way to a lawsuit and/ or a criminal investigation. We are not bound to follow illegal or immoral orders. Given the current attitudes of the Supreme Court of the United States and most State Legislation, we could get into come serious issues here. Given the legal climate, above mentioned, these "regulations" or "orders" could be defined as both illegal and immoral.
We're not talking about lynching the kid behind the barn. We're talking about whether or not little androgynous Sam wears a male or female uniform and sleeps with the male or female cadets.
I would suggest taking it up with NHQ Legal and verifying the applicability of CAP regulations in your home state. Talk with your Wing HQ and figure out what happens in these situations. Your gender in accordance with the law, is your gender in CAP. We don't have the discretion to decide that for ourselves at the squadron level. If the State of Wyoming says Cadet Sam is male, then he wears a male uniform and bunks with the male cadets. If there's an issue with him bunking with the male cadets, you can make other arrangements. You cannot bunk him with the female cadets. If there's an issue of showering, make arrangements. If someone is going to cause an issue regarding discrimination or the inappropriateness of Sam showering with other cadets of the same legal gender, they can take it up with Legal.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Let me begin by stating that I support the LGBT community. I also support every Cadet out there. Even if a Cadet is not a part of my Squadron, if they need help I am here for them. I will always strive to treat them with dignity and respect.
That being said. Like others out there I am concerned about loss of Cadets, parental fallout, and a sh**storm of paperwork. I don;t want to be face to face with Wing Legal. I am completely unsure what to do for an over night event. To force a Trangender cadet to bunk with males when they identify as female could be emotionally damaging to them. But bunking them with the females would make the others uncomfortable. Isolating said Cadet could be called an act of hazing.
I am not sure that the regulations we have at the moment are appropriate for these situations. But I am not sure what a good solution would be.
I'm going out on a limb here, but let me preface this by saying I have, in my civilian and personal life, several friends who are trans-gendered, gay, bi, and even transsexual, so this pains me to say what I have to say. Some crudity follows. And I may or may not be banned or flamed for this. I'm prepared for either.
If you are born with certain plumbing, and have not had the operation to change said plumbing, you are still that particular gender. I knew a teen aged girl who literally taped her chest down, identified as a male, but could not afford the operation to change (she was 16, and did not live at home or attend school). She dressed like a boy, did absolutely nothing feminine, had a girlfriend, and identified in every single way as a male except for one thing. She was called out time and again when "he" asked that people refer to "him" by his male name. "Until you either grow one, or have one surgically attached, YOU ARE STILL A GIRL!" said one person. A lesbian, no less. This was about 8 or 9 years ago. She used private restrooms when possible, but when forced to choose between male and female restrooms, had to go into the female one. She was not in CAP.
I am very sympathetic to gender and sexually "confused" people. However, someone 12-17 years old, still dealing with the normal pressures of being a teenager, in addition to gender identity, should NOT be accommodated in such a fashion as sleeping and showering and toileting with members of the opposite sex while they try to figure out where they fit in the grand scheme of things.
I am in no way saying segregate a cadet based on sexual "identity". This would be wrong. There really is no good solution. Based on the news about teens fighting for the "right" to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, I would say that most teens have a better handle on what they want in their bathroom. There are bathroom stall doors, the ability to dress and undress behind the shower stall curtain, people make the same noises in the bathroom regardless of their gender.
It's when people try to game the system that fairness falls apart. I can only envision a 14 year old "suddenly coming to the realization" that he is really a she inside, and wants to shower and live with the females at encampment, then suddenly "realizing I made a huge mistake" about a month later.
Counseling should be made available, not to try and change their mind about things. That's not our job. Counseling for anyone who feels that they are being....I don't know another word other than "violated" by someone they don't understand, how to cope with it, and so on.
It's a very touchy topic for everyone. Liberals will scream and cry about harassment, hazing, not having reasonable accommodations, and so on, while Conservatives will scream about having their "safe space" violated, "dem gay hommasekshuls ain't got no place in that CAP thing", and so on.
No easy solution. None. My PERSONAL slant on things is that use whatever bathroom you need to as a transgendered individual, laws permitting. I don't care. I'm not paying attention much to who is in the room while I go about my business. But it has no place in CAP. There really is no good or easy solution to how it would affect us.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on February 04, 2016, 03:50:07 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 03:30:46 PM
"Just follow the regulations" or "I was just following orders" is a sure fire way to a lawsuit and/ or a criminal investigation. We are not bound to follow illegal or immoral orders. Given the current attitudes of the Supreme Court of the United States and most State Legislation, we could get into come serious issues here. Given the legal climate, above mentioned, these "regulations" or "orders" could be defined as both illegal and immoral.
We're not talking about lynching the kid behind the barn. We're talking about whether or not little androgynous Sam wears a male or female uniform and sleeps with the male or female cadets.
I would suggest taking it up with NHQ Legal and verifying the applicability of CAP regulations in your home state. Talk with your Wing HQ and figure out what happens in these situations. Your gender in accordance with the law, is your gender in CAP. We don't have the discretion to decide that for ourselves at the squadron level. If the State of Wyoming says Cadet Sam is male, then he wears a male uniform and bunks with the male cadets. If there's an issue with him bunking with the male cadets, you can make other arrangements. You cannot bunk him with the female cadets. If there's an issue of showering, make arrangements. If someone is going to cause an issue regarding discrimination or the inappropriateness of Sam showering with other cadets of the same legal gender, they can take it up with Legal.
Interesting phrasing. You might want to drop if from your vocabulary and replace it with "billeted with".
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 03:30:46 PM
"Just follow the regulations" or "I was just following orders" is a sure fire way to a lawsuit and/ or a criminal investigation. We are not bound to follow illegal or immoral orders. Given the current attitudes of the Supreme Court of the United States and most State Legislation, we could get into come serious issues here. Given the legal climate, above mentioned, these "regulations" or "orders" could be defined as both illegal and immoral.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're probably not wrong if you're following the rules that are promulgated by the organization (which, presumably, were created with some degree of legal review to encompass most of the 50 states) and aren't doing anything that is not permitted by local law.
Example: If the CAP rules said "You can drive 70 mph in a CAP van!" (they don't, don't get all excited) and you were doing 70 in a 55 and got pulled over, you're wrong. :)
However, you have to be careful how you define "illegal" and "immoral."
Example: I had a lady for whom it was considered "immoral" for her to wear trousers (yeah, yeah, I know, I know). Anybody remember the "BDU skirt" arguement? <facepalm>
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2016, 04:45:45 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 03:30:46 PM
"Just follow the regulations" or "I was just following orders" is a sure fire way to a lawsuit and/ or a criminal investigation. We are not bound to follow illegal or immoral orders. Given the current attitudes of the Supreme Court of the United States and most State Legislation, we could get into come serious issues here. Given the legal climate, above mentioned, these "regulations" or "orders" could be defined as both illegal and immoral.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're probably not wrong if you're following the rules that are promulgated by the organization (which, presumably, were created with some degree of legal review to encompass most of the 50 states) and aren't doing anything that is not permitted by local law.
Example: If the CAP rules said "You can drive 70 mph in a CAP van!" (they don't, don't get all excited) and you were doing 70 in a 55 and got pulled over, you're wrong. :)
However, you have to be careful how you define "illegal" and "immoral."
Example: I had a lady for whom it was considered "immoral" for her to wear trousers (yeah, yeah, I know, I know). Anybody remember the "BDU skirt" arguement? <facepalm>
Yes. I do.
We also had a slight kerfuffle about a cadet wearing a religious head scarf in uniform a few months ago.
Our CD class last night was moral vs legal and ethical. The case study about the guy who "bought" his recruiter ribbon. Which led to a lively discussion about the ethics of a commander putting down their CAPID in the slot where it says "CAPID of the member most responsible for you joining CAP". Legal, yes. Ethical? No. Morally wrong? Maybe. Integrity issue? Certainly.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on February 04, 2016, 03:50:07 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 03:30:46 PM
"Just follow the regulations" or "I was just following orders" is a sure fire way to a lawsuit and/ or a criminal investigation. We are not bound to follow illegal or immoral orders. Given the current attitudes of the Supreme Court of the United States and most State Legislation, we could get into come serious issues here. Given the legal climate, above mentioned, these "regulations" or "orders" could be defined as both illegal and immoral.
We're not talking about lynching the kid behind the barn. We're talking about whether or not little androgynous Sam wears a male or female uniform and sleeps with the male or female cadets.
I would suggest taking it up with NHQ Legal and verifying the applicability of CAP regulations in your home state. Talk with your Wing HQ and figure out what happens in these situations. Your gender in accordance with the law, is your gender in CAP. We don't have the discretion to decide that for ourselves at the squadron level. If the State of Wyoming says Cadet Sam is male, then he wears a male uniform and bunks with the male cadets. If there's an issue with him bunking with the male cadets, you can make other arrangements. You cannot bunk him with the female cadets. If there's an issue of showering, make arrangements. If someone is going to cause an issue regarding discrimination or the inappropriateness of Sam showering with other cadets of the same legal gender, they can take it up with Legal.
Interesting phrasing. You might want to drop if from your vocabulary and replace it with "billeted with".
I originally said "bunked" and backspaced it. My error there, reading that line back after. ;)
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2016, 04:45:45 PM
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 03:30:46 PM
"Just follow the regulations" or "I was just following orders" is a sure fire way to a lawsuit and/ or a criminal investigation. We are not bound to follow illegal or immoral orders. Given the current attitudes of the Supreme Court of the United States and most State Legislation, we could get into come serious issues here. Given the legal climate, above mentioned, these "regulations" or "orders" could be defined as both illegal and immoral.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're probably not wrong if you're following the rules that are promulgated by the organization (which, presumably, were created with some degree of legal review to encompass most of the 50 states) and aren't doing anything that is not permitted by local law.
Example: If the CAP rules said "You can drive 70 mph in a CAP van!" (they don't, don't get all excited) and you were doing 70 in a 55 and got pulled over, you're wrong. :)
However, you have to be careful how you define "illegal" and "immoral."
Example: I had a lady for whom it was considered "immoral" for her to wear trousers (yeah, yeah, I know, I know). Anybody remember the "BDU skirt" arguement? <facepalm>
Again, on this same point, that's why we have Legal officers. We're not all lawyers and don't have the expertise to debate this in court. If there's a legal challenge to the regulations as a civil rights violation, let the Legal department take that to civil court. To your point, Lt Col Ninness, ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it. If a state says that transgender individuals are required to bunk in the same housing as the gender they identify with, then we can simply place them into another dormitory by themselves, and the problem is resolved. If that gets challenged as a hazing incident, that's when I would forward it up the chain and pass it off to the J.D.'s.
I think the best practice would be to discuss these matters with the cadet and parents at the time they join CAP. If the parents choose not to disclose the situation, and it doesn't come up until the cadets get their housing assignments at encampment, during a bivouac, or at a hotel for an overnight trip, then I would try to make reasonable accommodations at that time and we can discuss it further, time permitting.
I hate hypothetical situations, but that does give us some idea of looking into the future. Be prepared for this to come up and be ready to respond based on law and CAP regulations. You don't need to be prepared to go to court.
To Garibaldi's point:
Legal > Regulatory > Ethical
You are governed by law, restricted in your organizational actions by regulation, and behave by ethics.
The State of California is using definitions to include 22 (So far) "sexual identities" in training teachers on the subject, so things can become enormously complicated rather quickly, especially as an individual can change their stated sexual identity "on the fly" so to speak. These identities are independent of XX Vs XY chromosomes since in addition to these somewhat nebulous definitions ( Some group the known number of "sexual Identities in numbers greater than 50) There are also three basic types of medical hermaphrodism, with any number of odd genetic mutations. When we define ourselves by any specific "Race" ( Really a misnomer, sine there is only currently one "Race" of Mankind; Homo Sapiens, although some of us carry a bit of Neanderthal) effectively, we are what we say we are, and no one has any standing to dispute our claim ( Indian Tribes maintain their own legal systems to define tribal status) If I claim to be an African American, no one has the authority to deny my claim ( In fact, every living human being is in fact of African Ancestry, if you just go back 100,000 years or so)
Knowing California's penchant for reducing any law to the absurd, it seems likely that CAWG at least, will accept any self-described sexual identity, irrespective of how specious the claim. I dread the day when we have to explain to the parents of little Cadet Cindy, that she was supervised on an overnight activity by, hypothetically, a self-identified, pre-op transsexual female with a set of XY Chromosomes and the traditional male accoutrement. The CPPT remains unaltered, but the definitions grow in scope so broad as to be meaningless.
Alabama, clearly, is not California. To the best of my knowledge (And I would not expect to be told about it if it occurred) CAWG has not had to deal with a Cadet or Senior with a Medical Marijuana card smoking the heathen devil-weed during CAP activities. In the case of a Federal Military base, that medical marijuana card is just an admission that you are a user of illegal substances, regardless of what the State Law may say. To the best of my knowledge, we have not disqualified applicants for membership due to the Illegal use of Marijuana. No one that I can point to is the actual controlling legal authority, or the "Court of Original Jurisdiction" in these matters, but the facts seem, superficially, at least, to indicate that the obscurity of the law and policy has not actually presented us with any single problem requiring a legal test of the policy, and whether it is in conflict with USAF Values, Federal, or State Laws.
In the case of other military cadets, are the Military Academies accepting a transvestitive wearing of the uniform?
Actually at National Legal College last year, we were told by one of the speakers that if Johnny was a male cadet, came back after summer vacation and identified himself as a female cadet, we should accept that. Heated discussion arose and General Vazquez took the floor and said we shall research this more... Ned is correct.
Quote from: AirAux on February 04, 2016, 05:44:22 PM
Actually at National Legal College last year, we were told by one of the speakers that if Johnny was a male cadet, came back after summer vacation and identified himself as a female cadet, we should accept that. Heated discussion arose and General Vazquez took the floor and said we shall research this more... Ned is correct.
It's been a year since the topic was debated here. The response that was given was "We have top men working on it right now." When can we expect a progress report, or something from the lawyers?
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 05:54:35 PM
It's been a year since the topic was debated here. The response that was given was "We have top men working on it right now." When can we expect a progress report, or something from the lawyers?
TOP... men
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 05:54:35 PM
It's been a year since the topic was debated here. The response that was given was "We have top men working on it right now." When can we expect a progress report, or something from the lawyers?
As we all know, this is not a simple subject. Each year, laws are changed and expanded while some states look to restrict those laws. While I agree an expedited solution to this would be much appreciated, but I doubt a year is really enough time for NHQ to tackle this complex situation with 50 different state laws with 100 different wing and region lawyer opinions (whether grounded in law or simply personal interpretation of the law).
Quote from: ALORD on February 04, 2016, 05:09:33 PM
In the case of other military cadets, are the Military Academies accepting a transvestitive wearing of the uniform?
Do you mean "transsexual," "transgendered," or "transvestite?"
Because they are all different things. I'm pretty sure my penchant to dress in female uniforms in my off time (relax, I don't have one) doesn't parley well toward on-duty time, unless I have a need to identify as a different sex (which I don't).
Quote from: kirbahashi on February 04, 2016, 06:00:28 PM
TOP... men
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bg4BbctI7MQ/hqdefault.jpg)
FTFY, in case anybody was confused
Quote from: ALORD on February 04, 2016, 05:09:33 PM
In the case of other military cadets, are the Military Academies accepting a transvestitive wearing of the uniform?
Is this purely a matter of curiosity, as it has no bearing on CAP protocols?
Quote from: LSThiker on February 04, 2016, 06:08:57 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 05:54:35 PM
It's been a year since the topic was debated here. The response that was given was "We have top men working on it right now." When can we expect a progress report, or something from the lawyers?
As we all know, this is not a simple subject. Each year, laws are changed and expanded while some states look to restrict those laws. While I agree an expedited solution to this would be much appreciated, but I doubt a year is really enough time for NHQ to tackle this complex situation with 50 different state laws with 100 different wing and region lawyer opinions (whether grounded in law or simply personal interpretation of the law).
So by your explanation, it will never happen. Lousy Tenth Amendment. And you did not answer the question. I doubt that we are looking for, nor are we expecting an "expedited" solution, but after more than a year of discussion, there should be....something as opposed to the blank states and very loud silence.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 05:54:35 PM
It's been a year since the topic was debated here. The response that was given was "We have top men working on it right now." When can we expect a progress report, or something from the lawyers?
If only it were that simple. But this is much more than a mere legal issue. There are a lot of stakeholders and moving parts to carefully consider. And as others have pointed out, this whole issue is a moving target that continues to develop even as we aggressively work the issues in an attempt to be respectful, supportive, and inclusive to our membership while maintaining a challenging and vigorous youth leadership training program.
We've already had an extensive report from a task force that included GLTB experts, senior commanders, parents, chaplains, cadets, and CP officers. That report resulted in our current "legal gender in your state" policy.
After further discussions and additional raised concerns, Gen Vasquez appointed another group (CAP Study Group on Gender Issues - chaired by a legal officer) with a somewhat different mandate. They continue to meet, and have the Corporate Counsel and CP as official advisors to the group.
As it turns out, CAP is sending two CP folks to a conference on GLTB issues in youth organizations later this month. I'm sure we will be able to gather additional best practices and comparisons with other comparable organizations to provide to the Study Group.
At some point the Study Group will present something to the senior leadership who ultimately decides what CAP policies and regulations will be.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 06:15:30 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on February 04, 2016, 06:08:57 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 05:54:35 PM
It's been a year since the topic was debated here. The response that was given was "We have top men working on it right now." When can we expect a progress report, or something from the lawyers?
As we all know, this is not a simple subject. Each year, laws are changed and expanded while some states look to restrict those laws. While I agree an expedited solution to this would be much appreciated, but I doubt a year is really enough time for NHQ to tackle this complex situation with 50 different state laws with 100 different wing and region lawyer opinions (whether grounded in law or simply personal interpretation of the law).
So by your explanation, it will never happen. Lousy Tenth Amendment. And you did not answer the question. I doubt that we are looking for, nor are we expecting an "expedited" solution, but after more than a year of discussion, there should be....something as opposed to the blank states and very loud silence.
You could make it into an Article IV argument.
But in any case, even though we're a national organization, we do have different state laws to follow. In my home state of Ohio, your birth certificate states your legal gender; however, the state does recognize that drivers licenses may use identification gender, not biological gender.
So the law says that if you are born male due to the biological circumstances of your birth, you are male under the law. In CAP, you are male, so when mandating the wear of the uniform, you will wear the male uniform only. If you have a problem bunking with the other males in your unit, then we will suggest you not participate. If you still want to participate and are able to accept a housing accommodation that refrains from you bunking with females, we will do our best to make this work. If we cannot provide this accommodate, we cannot let you participate. If you have further issues, I refer it to Group. I followed the law. I followed CAP regs. There's nothing more I can do for you.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 06:15:30 PM
So by your explanation, it will never happen. Lousy Tenth Amendment. And you did not answer the question. I doubt that we are looking for, nor are we expecting an "expedited" solution, but after more than a year of discussion, there should be....something as opposed to the blank states and very loud silence.
I hope it does happen. I did not "answer the question" simply because I do not have an answer to the question. No one at this point does. I think our definitions of expedited are different. To me for this situation, a year is an expedited solution. Considering how long it took for the US to allow gays and lesbians into the military and women into combat roles, I really do not expect anything to happen soon. Nevertheless, I am sure a definitive solution will be presented. As Ned points out, there are a lot of moving parts.
I am fully supportive of LBGT issues as I think it is quite obvious. While I wish the US Supreme Court or Congress would draft laws that would answer all of these questions we have tomorrow, one must be realistic. It will take time and a lot of it unfortunately.
Quote from: LSThiker on February 04, 2016, 06:37:46 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 06:15:30 PM
So by your explanation, it will never happen. Lousy Tenth Amendment. And you did not answer the question. I doubt that we are looking for, nor are we expecting an "expedited" solution, but after more than a year of discussion, there should be....something as opposed to the blank states and very loud silence.
I hope it does happen. I did not "answer the question" simply because I do not have an answer to the question. No one at this point does. I think our definitions of expedited are different. To me for this situation, a year is an expedited solution. Considering how long it took for the US to allow gays and lesbians into the military and women into combat roles, I really do not expect anything to happen soon. Nevertheless, I am sure a definitive solution will be presented. As Ned points out, there are a lot of moving parts.
I am fully supportive of LBGT issues as I think it is quite obvious. While I wish the US Supreme Court or Congress would draft laws that would answer all of these questions we have tomorrow, one must be realistic. It will take time and a lot of it unfortunately.
The issue I see right now is that we have "TOP Men" working on this, however those people don't actually have to deal with the situations. Detailed discussions at the "echelons above reality" don't help when a situation presents itself in the real world. Local unit and activity commanders do have to do so, and they're being asked to do so without guidance.
Some guidance as to how to approach these questions, even if it is only preliminary, is needed.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 05:54:35 PM
Quote from: AirAux on February 04, 2016, 05:44:22 PM
Actually at National Legal College last year, we were told by one of the speakers that if Johnny was a male cadet, came back after summer vacation and identified himself as a female cadet, we should accept that. Heated discussion arose and General Vazquez took the floor and said we shall research this more... Ned is correct.
It's been a year since the topic was debated here. The response that was given was "We have top men working on it right now." When can we expect a progress report, or something from the lawyers?
Since when have Lawyers ever produced legal opinions is a timely manner. When has CAP ever gotten policy out in a timely manner. Now combine those two things........and add in LGBT issues.....which I would like to point out are constantly changing, currently in review my BIG BLUE Air Force. A year is just enough time for the players to get a feel for how complex the issue can be.
In the mean time we got a policy. "What does your ID card say?" It's not the best policy, but it's simple.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 06:15:30 PM
I doubt that we are looking for, nor are we expecting an "expedited" solution, but after more than a year of discussion, there should be....something as opposed to the blank states and very loud silence.
I don't think that is quite fair. After an extensive study,
we HAVE an existing policy. Legal gender. That may or may not change as a result of additional study and review. But it bears repeating that we have an existing policy specifically formulated in response to careful study.
NHQ has been directly involved with CP leaders in the field (NCSA and encampment commanders, unit and wing commanders, etc.) to explain the current policy and provide support where needed. This is not an "ivory tower" issue for us. It is an important issue that affects a growing number of CP officers.
Thank you for your work with our cadets.
Ned,
At the risk of asking the question that will result in ridicule and embarrassment, what is the policy and where does one find it?
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 04, 2016, 07:17:04 PM
Ned,
At the risk of asking the question that will result in ridicule and embarrassment, what is the policy and where does one find it?
Ditto this. It's not in the reg dealing with membership....nor is it in the nondiscrimination regs....nor the the KB have any info under the terms "transgender" or "transsexual"....where can this written policy be found?
I would assume he is referring to 36-1, nondiscrimination in CAP, but I can't see anything referring to gender other than the de rigeur we will not discriminate based on sex, race, gender etc.
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 04, 2016, 07:33:49 PM
I would assume he is referring to 36-1, nondiscrimination in CAP, but I can't see anything referring to gender other than the de rigeur we will not discriminate based on sex, race, gender etc.
Possibly, but that still doesn't address the issue that "we have a policy" and it is based on "legal gender".
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2016, 06:11:01 PM
Quote from: ALORD on February 04, 2016, 05:09:33 PM
In the case of other military cadets, are the Military Academies accepting a transvestitive wearing of the uniform?
Do you mean "transsexual," "transgendered," or "transvestite?"
Because they are all different things. I'm pretty sure my penchant to dress in female uniforms in my off time (relax, I don't have one) doesn't parley well toward on-duty time, unless I have a need to identify as a different sex (which I don't).
Nin,
I am assuming that the Service Academies would not accept, for instance, a male candidate who was undergoing hormonal therapy with or without genital surgical modifications ( Hey, they don't even like tattoos!) So I am limiting my question specifically to "public" transvestites in regards to the Service Academies. While comparing CAP to West Point is a bit of a reach, it gives us policy inferences or a bench mark at least in so far as the wearing of the Uniform. I have worked as a Medic in San Franciso, and I understand the distinctions you have pointed out. ( And then some!) Although we may ( Reluctantly or happily) accept alternative sexual identities, any out of the ordinary alternative life-style, if kept, so to speak, in the closet, may be cause for the denial or revocation of some types of security clearances, since it leaves the person open to blackmail or coercion. In the absence of any actual situations occurring like this in CAP, I don't see that the potential rats nest of problems need be pre-determined. Most people I would assume are concerned about their cadets, whether or not there fears are rational or irrational bigotry. Irrespective of the difficulties in describing an actual person's "Category" the CPPT still provides useful, although somewhat draconian tools in the event of a complaint. Suspend and Investigate, and in a perfect world, leave politics out of it.
You do realize that a "male candidate who was undergoing hormonal therapy with or without genital surgical modifications" is not a "transvestite" any more than he's a "penguin," right?
There is a substantial difference between a "transgender male" or "transsexual male" as you describe, and a "transvestite." The comedian Eddie Izzard is the latter (or, as he likes to put it, "an executive transvestite")
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2016, 08:45:02 PM
You do realize that a "male candidate who was undergoing hormonal therapy with or without genital surgical modifications" is not a "transvestite" any more than he's a "penguin," right?
There is a substantial difference between a "transgender male" or "transsexual male" as you describe, and a "transvestite." The comedian Eddie Izzard is the latter (or, as he likes to put it, "an executive transvestite")
But does he have a flag?
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 08:48:20 PM
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2016, 08:45:02 PM
You do realize that a "male candidate who was undergoing hormonal therapy with or without genital surgical modifications" is not a "transvestite" any more than he's a "penguin," right?
There is a substantial difference between a "transgender male" or "transsexual male" as you describe, and a "transvestite." The comedian Eddie Izzard is the latter (or, as he likes to put it, "an executive transvestite")
But does he have a flag?
Transvestites are ones with predilections to dress in...well, dresses. Kinda like Klinger was in MASH, but his shtick was dressing in dresses to get out of the army, not as part of any kind of gender identity issue. Milton Berle dressed in dresses for comedic effect. Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari dressed as women in Bosom Buddies (80s sitcom) in order to secure an apartment exclusively for female tenants.
Transgender are physically male or female and identify as opposite. They have not yet undergone reassignment surgery.
Transsexuals are ones who have undergone gender reassignment surgery and are for all intents and purposes physically, and psychologically the opposite gender from what they were born.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 04, 2016, 08:48:20 PM
But does he have a flag?
I suppose. He's from Europe. Thats where the history comes from.
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2016, 06:11:01 PM
Quote from: ALORD on February 04, 2016, 05:09:33 PM
In the case of other military cadets, are the Military Academies accepting a transvestitive wearing of the uniform?
Do you mean "transsexual," "transgendered," or "transvestite?"
Because they are all different things. I'm pretty sure my penchant to dress in female uniforms in my off time (relax, I don't have one) doesn't parley well toward on-duty time, unless I have a need to identify as a different sex (which I don't).
Of course as the Colonel has previously pointed out, this thread deals with the TRANSGENDERED
As for the military academies.
This source states it it under review and change is expected soon
http://militarypartners.org/huge-pentagon-readying-plan-to-lift-transgender-military-ban/ (http://militarypartners.org/huge-pentagon-readying-plan-to-lift-transgender-military-ban/)
This source states the
ban will end in May 2016http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/25/military-transgender-ban-set-end-next-may/32345385/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/25/military-transgender-ban-set-end-next-may/32345385/)
Not relevant to CAP but no doubt of interest to readers of this thread.
For those interested in the transgendered in the US military, here are some sources. I've tried to keep them balanced.
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Transgender-Military-Service-May-2014.pdf (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Transgender-Military-Service-May-2014.pdf)
http://www.frc.org/pressrelease/family-research-council-urges-pentagon-to-focus-on-readiness-not-a-transgender-policy (http://www.frc.org/pressrelease/family-research-council-urges-pentagon-to-focus-on-readiness-not-a-transgender-policy)
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/07/18/transgender-troops-policy-change-raises-many-questions/30256249/ (http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/07/18/transgender-troops-policy-change-raises-many-questions/30256249/)
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/06/05/transgender-airman-praises-policy/28554781/ (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/06/05/transgender-airman-praises-policy/28554781/)
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/11/01/jblm-transgender-soldier-endures-wait-for-army-reforms/74997360/ (http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/11/01/jblm-transgender-soldier-endures-wait-for-army-reforms/74997360/)
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jim-inhofe-opposes-transgender-troops-military-bathroom-120418 (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jim-inhofe-opposes-transgender-troops-military-bathroom-120418)
None of this is directly relevant to the CAP, of course, but I'm certain many readers of this board would be interested.
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2016, 08:45:02 PM
You do realize that a "male candidate who was undergoing hormonal therapy with or without genital surgical modifications" is not a "transvestite" any more than he's a "penguin," right?
There is a substantial difference between a "transgender male" or "transsexual male" as you describe, and a "transvestite." The comedian Eddie Izzard is the latter (or, as he likes to put it, "an executive transvestite")
Nin,
A male who wears women's clothes is not necessarily a "Transvestite" either. You are being silly. The question goes to whether men are being allowed to wear women's uniforms in the Service Academies, not as part of some Yale-like, homoerotic "skull and bones" society thing, but because they are men....and they want to wear women's clothes! Their status in the color spectrum of the LGBT world is irrelevant, even if they are penguins. Secondly, men who are taking female hormones ( Or male Hormones for that matter) incur an enormous amount of health risk, and the emotional lability that these Hormones can cause, would be an absolute catastrophe in a high stress environment. Even conventional "Hormone Replacement" therapy for post-menopausal women ( And again, occasionally in men as well, although this is only arguably therapeutic in men) usually has a significant number of side effects and potential longer term health risks. In the case of a pre-op transsexuals, most doctors will require the patient live as their desired gender and in many cases take hormones for some time before allowing surgical alteration. It is not readily reversible. Many change their mind, some kill themselves, some cannot find funding for an elective procedure that is medically unethical at worst, and surgical mutilation at best. In the case of any person in a Service Academy taking dangerous, elective medications, or submitting to elective, dangerous, and life-altering surgical procedures would be unwise. If Uncle Sam gets his shorts in a bunch about some kid from Alabama with a rebel flag tattoo, or some Goth-kid getting his tongue forked or earlobes mutilated, how then should (He) view these "new" issues? Regardless how how the DSM bows to political-correctness, men who want to dress up as women, or become surgically and chemically altered to "Change their sex" ( Which of course is not actually possible) it is clear that many people in these discussed categories suffer from very deep and severe personality and identity issues.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Quote from: ALORD on February 06, 2016, 01:59:06 AM
Regardless how how the DSM bows to political-correctness, men who want to dress up as women, or become surgically and chemically altered to "Change their sex" ( Which of course is not actually possible) it is clear that many people in these discussed categories suffer from very deep and severe personality and identity issues.
As I stated in the OP, the FAA no longer includes transgender as a "mental illness"
http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/01/to-faa-transgender-pilots-no-longer-have-a-mental-illness/ (http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/01/to-faa-transgender-pilots-no-longer-have-a-mental-illness/)
Quote from: RNOfficer on February 06, 2016, 11:09:34 PM
Quote from: ALORD on February 06, 2016, 01:59:06 AM
Regardless how how the DSM bows to political-correctness, men who want to dress up as women, or become surgically and chemically altered to "Change their sex" ( Which of course is not actually possible) it is clear that many people in these discussed categories suffer from very deep and severe personality and identity issues.
As I stated in the OP, the FAA no longer includes transgender as a "mental illness"
http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/01/to-faa-transgender-pilots-no-longer-have-a-mental-illness/ (http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2016/01/to-faa-transgender-pilots-no-longer-have-a-mental-illness/)
Which seems as irrelevant to his points. Trying to "wish away" the significant suicide and self injurious behavior rate of people who self identify with these issues by pointing to a federal agencies political decision to not classify the problem as an illness doesn't really address it. (There are enormous side discussions to be had on blanket approval of a population with documented increased suicidal tendencies as licensed pilots, but that isn't relevant to your original point of handling cadet membership, either, whether you accept that these behaviors are deviations from a wide norm or not).
The entire issue of how DoD is struggling with the issue for adult recruits is largely irrelevant compared to our need to provide a cadet program for minors who are still legally children (in all 50 states) and who are still in their formative years of development.
CAP has no business either endorsing or restricting, promoting or suppressing,
or even discussing sexual identity with minor children during their developmental phases. Sorry, RNOfficer, I know you may think this is part of a CAP health services mission (a guess on my part, only based on reading your past posts), and I appreciate your interest in serving the members from your point of view, but I'd disagree as much as I disagreed with one of my Chaplains once who thought he'd use CAP to push his faith on cadets. Not part of our mission.
V/R
Spam
Quote from: NIN on February 04, 2016, 06:12:04 PM
Quote from: kirbahashi on February 04, 2016, 06:00:28 PM
TOP... men
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bg4BbctI7MQ/hqdefault.jpg)
FTFY, in case anybody was confused
Keeping with the lighter notes...
Go Porkins! (William Hootkins)!
http://www.dorkly.com/post/69741/awesome-actors-you-didnt-realize-were-in-everything-you-like (http://www.dorkly.com/post/69741/awesome-actors-you-didnt-realize-were-in-everything-you-like)
V/R
Spam
Quote from: Spam on February 07, 2016, 12:10:47 AM
CAP has no business either endorsing or restricting, promoting or suppressing, or even discussing sexual identity with minor children during their developmental phases. Sorry, RNOfficer, I know you may think this is part of a CAP health services mission (a guess on my part, only based on reading your past posts), and I appreciate your interest in serving the members from your point of view, but I'd disagree as much as I disagreed with one of my Chaplains once who thought he'd use CAP to push his faith on cadets. Not part of our mission.
V/R
Spam
I agree.
Hence the quite logical stance of CAP to leave the definitions and identification up to the states.
You are a boy or a girl base on what ever legal government issued documents say you are.
CAP will not be endorsing, restricting or promoting anything.
If there was a cadet who was an open trans anything in our squadron my family would withdraw.
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Secondly IMO a young person who believes he or she is a different sex is misguided and adults have an obligation to give them proper guidance.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 12:28:29 PM
If there was a cadet who was an open trans anything in our squadron my family would withdraw.
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Secondly IMO a young person who believes he or she is a different sex is misguided and adults have an obligation to give them proper guidance.
Begging your pardon, but it is not CAP's place to teach "Christian moral values." If you feel you have that much of an obligation to "give them proper guidance" because they are "misguided" then I suggest you have options other than a non-denominational non-religious non-exclusive organization such as ours.
Good luck to you!
Quote from: lordmonar on February 07, 2016, 08:08:39 AM
Quote from: Spam on February 07, 2016, 12:10:47 AM
CAP has no business either endorsing or restricting, promoting or suppressing, or even discussing sexual identity with minor children during their developmental phases. Sorry, RNOfficer, I know you may think this is part of a CAP health services mission (a guess on my part, only based on reading your past posts), and I appreciate your interest in serving the members from your point of view, but I'd disagree as much as I disagreed with one of my Chaplains once who thought he'd use CAP to push his faith on cadets. Not part of our mission.
V/R
Spam
I agree.
Hence the quite logical stance of CAP to leave the definitions and identification up to the states.
You are a boy or a girl base on what ever legal government issued documents say you are.
CAP will not be endorsing, restricting or promoting anything.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 12:28:29 PM
If there was a cadet who was an open trans anything in our squadron my family would withdraw.
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Secondly IMO a young person who believes he or she is a different sex is misguided and adults have an obligation to give them proper guidance.
And here we have the divergence that makes for colorful discussion on CAPTalk....
Just to make things clear; CAP develops young leaders within our "Core Values". "We" do not teach our cadets, nor do we impose our personal beliefs on them. The value of "respect" is expected for all of us. I understand the discomfort (of some) to deal with the "different", and I understand the passion of those of fundamentalist belief, however, IMHO, the expression of such should be left at home; not taken to your unit.
Quote from: FW on February 07, 2016, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 07, 2016, 08:08:39 AM
Quote from: Spam on February 07, 2016, 12:10:47 AM
CAP has no business either endorsing or restricting, promoting or suppressing, or even discussing sexual identity with minor children during their developmental phases. Sorry, RNOfficer, I know you may think this is part of a CAP health services mission (a guess on my part, only based on reading your past posts), and I appreciate your interest in serving the members from your point of view, but I'd disagree as much as I disagreed with one of my Chaplains once who thought he'd use CAP to push his faith on cadets. Not part of our mission.
V/R
Spam
I agree.
Hence the quite logical stance of CAP to leave the definitions and identification up to the states.
You are a boy or a girl base on what ever legal government issued documents say you are.
CAP will not be endorsing, restricting or promoting anything.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 12:28:29 PM
If there was a cadet who was an open trans anything in our squadron my family would withdraw.
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Secondly IMO a young person who believes he or she is a different sex is misguided and adults have an obligation to give them proper guidance.
And here we have the divergence that makes for colorful discussion on CAPTalk....
Just to make things clear; CAP develops young leaders within our "Core Values". "We" do not teach our cadets, nor do we impose our personal beliefs on them. The value of "respect" is expected for all of us. I understand the discomfort (of some) to deal with the "different", and I understand the passion of those of fundamentalist belief, however, IMHO, the expression of such should be left at home; not taken to your unit.
So you would be OK with a transvestite 6' 2" 5:00 shadow deep voice with heels and a blond wig helping your 13 year old son develop Core Values? Do you want your 14 year old daughter to spend all week a group of college aged female cadets who believe they are men? What a joke. I don't want my family anywhere near that type of perversion.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 03:14:05 PM
Quote from: FW on February 07, 2016, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 07, 2016, 08:08:39 AM
Quote from: Spam on February 07, 2016, 12:10:47 AM
CAP has no business either endorsing or restricting, promoting or suppressing, or even discussing sexual identity with minor children during their developmental phases. Sorry, RNOfficer, I know you may think this is part of a CAP health services mission (a guess on my part, only based on reading your past posts), and I appreciate your interest in serving the members from your point of view, but I'd disagree as much as I disagreed with one of my Chaplains once who thought he'd use CAP to push his faith on cadets. Not part of our mission.
V/R
Spam
I agree.
Hence the quite logical stance of CAP to leave the definitions and identification up to the states.
You are a boy or a girl base on what ever legal government issued documents say you are.
CAP will not be endorsing, restricting or promoting anything.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 12:28:29 PM
If there was a cadet who was an open trans anything in our squadron my family would withdraw.
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Secondly IMO a young person who believes he or she is a different sex is misguided and adults have an obligation to give them proper guidance.
And here we have the divergence that makes for colorful discussion on CAPTalk....
Just to make things clear; CAP develops young leaders within our "Core Values". "We" do not teach our cadets, nor do we impose our personal beliefs on them. The value of "respect" is expected for all of us. I understand the discomfort (of some) to deal with the "different", and I understand the passion of those of fundamentalist belief, however, IMHO, the expression of such should be left at home; not taken to your unit.
So you would be OK with a transvestite 6' 2" 5:00 shadow deep voice with heels and a blond wig helping your 13 year old son develop Core Values? Do you want your 14 year old daughter to spend all week a group of college aged female cadets who believe they are men? What a joke. I don't want my family anywhere near that type of perversion.
There's the door. Don't let it hit you where the Good Lord split you on the way out. This is the type of attitude we are trying to stop. Thank you for your service to CAP, inc. and we will be sorry (not) to see you go. For your information, more "perversion" is committed by male seniors against male cadets than any gay/trans/bi against the unwilling. If you are so threatened by this type of lifestyle, then I suggest you check yourself and take a really good look in the mirror and decide for yourself if you really are as heterosexual and as loving a Christian as you claim to be. If you feel THAT threatened, then perhaps YOU are the one with the issues.
*drops mic*
No further responses from me will be forthcoming. Any PMs on the subject from you will be reported to the moderator as harassing and intolerant.
Warning #1. PMs sent. Get back on topic. Do not respond to the inflammatory comments. If you must chime in, take it to PM.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 12:28:29 PM
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Can you please provide a regulation quote that says CAP teaches Christian moral values?
Last time I checked, we have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Satanists, and scores of other religions in CAP.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 03:14:05 PM
So you would be OK with a transvestite 6' 2" 5:00 shadow deep voice with heels and a blond wig helping your 13 year old son develop Core Values? Do you want your 14 year old daughter to spend all week a group of college aged female cadets who believe they are men? What a joke. I don't want my family anywhere near that type of perversion.
My single attempt to give a rational response to an irrational statement and individual...
As long as that 6'2" transvestite conforms with CAPR 39-1 and our grooming standards, I don't see the problem. If that person is teaching the Core Values as laid out by CAP then they're not teaching any perversion. It also should be pointed out that CAP doesn't provide a platform to stage a drag or burlesque show at cadet meetings. So, I really think your concern is truly for naught.
As far as your other concern of teaching Christian values, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in the Boy Scouts if that is your primary concern.
Feeble attempt to get back on topic here. I know I said I would not reply or entertain any responses to PMs, but for what it's worth, and I hope this rings true with at least some people here, here goes nothing.
I am probably the most liberal leaning member of CAP. Compared to some of my peers, at least. Most everyone I've encountered in CAP leans towards conservatism, but shades of liberalism come through at times. This is one of those times.
A lot of conservatives have harsh words about the gay/trans/bi life, and that's OK. They're entitled to their opinions. Misguided or not, they are entitled to think, feel, and speak that way. Doesn't mean we won't respond, but there you go.
That said, I fully support any cadet that comes out to me as gay, or bi, or transgendered, and I will do anything in my power to protect their rights as a human being and a cadet.
HOWEVER...and this is where it gets really sticky for me....logistically, it is going to be a nightmare, as we've seen so far. A cadet with boyparts who identifies as a female, and vice versa, is welcome in my unit. I would have a hard time figuring out billeting and such, but as we've seen, CAP is nothing if not resourceful. We'd figure out a way to make it work to the benefit of all involved. We always find a way.
The Army Values states "I will always put the mission first". Our Core Values include the word RESPECT. This means everyone, not just people who share the same point of view or belief structure. If you cannot live up to the value of RESPECT, then you are more than welcome to spend your money and time where you are more happy. No one is twisting your arm to be here. I'm not calling anyone out on this; I've already done that earlier.
All I'm saying is that if we don't live up to the Core Values, then we're nowhere. An archaic organism with no purpose, no life, no mission. I would put it to the membership at large to put their personal feelings about this aside, and look to the larger mission. Figure out where the rest of the puzzle pieces go later.
Let's not lose our focus. It's a real issue that we will have to deal with sooner or later. I, personally, will not cry if those who don't agree with having their kids share 3 hours a week with someone who identifies as a different gender leaves in a huff. I don't need that kind of negativity in my life, and you should not either. Our job is not to judge, but to execute the mission.
Now, I'm done.
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 07, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 03:14:05 PM
Quote from: FW on February 07, 2016, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 07, 2016, 08:08:39 AM
Quote from: Spam on February 07, 2016, 12:10:47 AM
CAP has no business either endorsing or restricting, promoting or suppressing, or even discussing sexual identity with minor children during their developmental phases. Sorry, RNOfficer, I know you may think this is part of a CAP health services mission (a guess on my part, only based on reading your past posts), and I appreciate your interest in serving the members from your point of view, but I'd disagree as much as I disagreed with one of my Chaplains once who thought he'd use CAP to push his faith on cadets. Not part of our mission.
V/R
Spam
I agree.
Hence the quite logical stance of CAP to leave the definitions and identification up to the states.
You are a boy or a girl base on what ever legal government issued documents say you are.
CAP will not be endorsing, restricting or promoting anything.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 12:28:29 PM
If there was a cadet who was an open trans anything in our squadron my family would withdraw.
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Secondly IMO a young person who believes he or she is a different sex is misguided and adults have an obligation to give them proper guidance.
And here we have the divergence that makes for colorful discussion on CAPTalk....
Just to make things clear; CAP develops young leaders within our "Core Values". "We" do not teach our cadets, nor do we impose our personal beliefs on them. The value of "respect" is expected for all of us. I understand the discomfort (of some) to deal with the "different", and I understand the passion of those of fundamentalist belief, however, IMHO, the expression of such should be left at home; not taken to your unit.
So you would be OK with a transvestite 6' 2" 5:00 shadow deep voice with heels and a blond wig helping your 13 year old son develop Core Values? Do you want your 14 year old daughter to spend all week a group of college aged female cadets who believe they are men? What a joke. I don't want my family anywhere near that type of perversion.
There's the door. Don't let it hit you where the Good Lord split you on the way out. This is the type of attitude we are trying to stop. Thank you for your service to CAP, inc. and we will be sorry (not) to see you go. For your information, more "perversion" is committed by male seniors against male cadets than any gay/trans/bi against the unwilling. If you are so threatened by this type of lifestyle, then I suggest you check yourself and take a really good look in the mirror and decide for yourself if you really are as heterosexual and as loving a Christian as you claim to be. If you feel THAT threatened, then perhaps YOU are the one with the issues.
*drops mic*
No further responses from me will be forthcoming. Any PMs on the subject from you will be reported to the moderator as harassing and intolerant.
I have never PMed you!
Quote from: LSThiker on February 07, 2016, 03:33:24 PM
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 12:28:29 PM
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Can you please provide a regulation quote that says CAP teaches Christian moral values?
Last time I checked, we have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Satanists, and scores of other religions in CAP.
I know they were looking for a pastor for the chaplain spot which is usually a cleric in a Christian church. Why did they say Pastor instead of Iman or Satanist?
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 06:58:05 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on February 07, 2016, 03:33:24 PM
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 12:28:29 PM
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Can you please provide a regulation quote that says CAP teaches Christian moral values?
Last time I checked, we have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Satanists, and scores of other religions in CAP.
I know they were looking for a pastor for the chaplain spot which is usually a cleric in a Christian church. Why did they say Pastor instead of Iman or Satanist?
Also didn't say "Priest" either, but I know some Catholic Chaplains. A Rabbi or a Imam can absolutely become a CAP Chaplain.
So..... about that new G1000 upgrade.... >:D
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 07, 2016, 07:09:26 PM
So..... about that new G1000 upgrade.... >:D
Y'all haven't gotten that yet? Move into the 21st century, man! We're already up to G-2000!
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on February 07, 2016, 04:29:56 PM
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 03:14:05 PM
So you would be OK with a transvestite 6' 2" 5:00 shadow deep voice with heels and a blond wig helping your 13 year old son develop Core Values? Do you want your 14 year old daughter to spend all week a group of college aged female cadets who believe they are men? What a joke. I don't want my family anywhere near that type of perversion.
My single attempt to give a rational response to an irrational statement and individual...
As long as that 6'2" transvestite conforms with CAPR 39-1 and our grooming standards, I don't see the problem. If that person is teaching the Core Values as laid out by CAP then they're not teaching any perversion. It also should be pointed out that CAP doesn't provide a platform to stage a drag or burlesque show at cadet meetings. So, I really think your concern is truly for naught.
As far as your other concern of teaching Christian values, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in the Boy Scouts if that is your primary concern.
I realize CAP is not advertising to have a Tuesday night drag show after the pledge of allegiance but allowing openly transgender or transvestite people this is what we are accepting. It could very well be that we have a man dressed as a woman who is working with boys or a girl being with a group of older girl cadets who identity as male.
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 07, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
No further responses from me will be forthcoming. Any PMs on the subject from you will be reported to the moderator as harassing and intolerant.
I dont care what side of the argument you are on... that was just silly. Welcome to the internet age where people can be harassed by PMs they dont have to open.
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 07, 2016, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 07, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
No further responses from me will be forthcoming. Any PMs on the subject from you will be reported to the moderator as harassing and intolerant.
I dont care what side of the argument you are on... that was just silly. Welcome to the internet age where people can be harassed by PMs they dont have to open.
FYI I have not PMed anyone on this subject but what the "intolerant" part about? Second I don't see how my post indicated I was going towards harassing the poster.
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 07, 2016, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 07, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
No further responses from me will be forthcoming. Any PMs on the subject from you will be reported to the moderator as harassing and intolerant.
I dont care what side of the argument you are on... that was just silly. Welcome to the internet age where people can be harassed by PMs they dont have to open.
Eh. Whatevs. I've had worse in my inbox. But you're right. Non-productive, silly, ineffective. All I have to do is ignore the message. Which is why I refuse to respond to him/her anymore. My blood pressure shot through the roof before I could check myself earlier. Not worth it.
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 07, 2016, 07:21:27 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 07, 2016, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 07, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
No further responses from me will be forthcoming. Any PMs on the subject from you will be reported to the moderator as harassing and intolerant.
I dont care what side of the argument you are on... that was just silly. Welcome to the internet age where people can be harassed by PMs they dont have to open.
Eh. Whatevs. I've had worse in my inbox. But you're right. Non-productive, silly, ineffective. All I have to do is ignore the message. Which is why I refuse to respond to him/her anymore. My blood pressure shot through the roof before I could check myself earlier. Not worth it.
I've not PMed you or anyone else today. A PMd someone a few weeks ago about an alternate encampment date.
Go over to the Aviation section and watch the video of the SR71 pilot. It will make your day.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 07:23:45 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 07, 2016, 07:21:27 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 07, 2016, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 07, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
No further responses from me will be forthcoming. Any PMs on the subject from you will be reported to the moderator as harassing and intolerant.
I dont care what side of the argument you are on... that was just silly. Welcome to the internet age where people can be harassed by PMs they dont have to open.
Eh. Whatevs. I've had worse in my inbox. But you're right. Non-productive, silly, ineffective. All I have to do is ignore the message. Which is why I refuse to respond to him/her anymore. My blood pressure shot through the roof before I could check myself earlier. Not worth it.
I've not PMed you or anyone else today. A PMd someone a few weeks ago about an alternate encampment date.
I think he explained that he's over it.
You know, this thread is the trainwreck I expected it to be. And would expect nothing less from CAPTalk. The "usual suspects" doing their thing...
Quote from: PHall on February 07, 2016, 07:40:21 PM
You know, this thread is the trainwreck I expected it to be. And would expect nothing less from CAPTalk. The "usual suspects" doing their thing...
I resemble that remark....but seriously, nothing gets my dander up faster than intolerance. I'm out. At least for this topic.
For the record, nowhere did I state that I had received a PM from anyone, just that I would ignore one if one came in.
Well, this got silly fast.
Back to the original question, I think it's asking a little much of CAP to have a stance on transgender issues set in stone, because that's something American society as a whole is still trying to figure out.
With that in mind, my personal opinion is that the current policy of "legal gender as defined by the state" (if I'm reading the rest of the thread correctly) is probably the best stance for the organization as a whole for right now.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 07:14:18 PMI realize CAP is not advertising to have a Tuesday night drag show after the pledge of allegiance but allowing openly transgender or transvestite people this is what we are accepting. It could very well be that we have a man dressed as a woman who is working with boys or a girl being with a group of older girl cadets who identity as male.
And?
That's the intolerable part that people are pointing out.
Doing your job in CAP has very little to do with your gender or what clothes you want to wear.
I'm an atheist. I believe that religion is actually harmful to individuals and to society in general. But I tolerate as long as it does not interfere with with the three missions of CAP.
[/rant]
I think we "jumped the shark" on this one.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 07, 2016, 09:14:14 PM
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 07:14:18 PMI realize CAP is not advertising to have a Tuesday night drag show after the pledge of allegiance but allowing openly transgender or transvestite people this is what we are accepting. It could very well be that we have a man dressed as a woman who is working with boys or a girl being with a group of older girl cadets who identity as male.
And?
That's the intolerable part that people are pointing out.
Doing your job in CAP has very little to do with your gender or what clothes you want to wear.
I'm an atheist. I believe that religion is actually harmful to individuals and to society in general. But I tolerate as long as it does not interfere with with the three missions of CAP.
[/rant]
Religion has no place in CAP. That is why we went from a "faith based" moral leadership program to Character Development program. Too many issues with chaplains putting their own religious spin on things, proselytizing and preaching. Sure, the CD officer has to be someone with a theological degree, but that does not mean they get to have the Sunday Come to Jesus meetin' at CAP. Proselytize on your own time.
Stay on topic, folks. I think insightful discourse can come from this thread, which is why I haven't shut it down yet. Ignore the inflammatory remarks and focus on the main points. If history teaches us anything, it's that the only constant is change. As society adapts legally, how will we make this work within our organization? What will it look like? Will it always be based on legal gender? Maybe. Will it require the designation of an additional bunking area? I do agree that we are jumping the shark a little, but if I had a transgendered cadet that raised these questions to me with their parents I know I would like the benefit of forethought that this thread enables. Please stay on topic so we don't have to shut this one down.
Quote from: Pace on February 07, 2016, 09:46:56 PM
Stay on topic, folks. I think insightful discourse can come from this thread, which is why I haven't shut it down yet. Ignore the inflammatory remarks and focus on the main points. If history teaches us anything, it's that the only constant is change. As society adapts legally, how will we make this work within our organization? What will it look like? Will it always be based on legal gender? Maybe. Will it require the designation of an additional bunking area? I do agree that we are jumping the shark a little, but if I had a transgendered cadet that raised these questions to me with their parents I know I would like the benefit of forethought that this thread enables. Please stay on topic so we don't have to shut this one down.
This is so very true. It's coming, and while it may not come on your watch, you have to decide how you're going to handle it if/when the time comes. It's going to go through a long, arduous process to make a coherent, cohesive policy, but think back to where we were not even 60 years ago with the civil rights movement. It was illegal to do a lot of things because of the color of your skin, something you had no more control over than you would if you were left or right handed. Speaking of, it was considered heretical to be left handed way back when. Look how far we've come as a society. There's going to be those who fight against it to their last breath and there will be some who shrug their shoulders, roll up their sleeves, and join the rest of the world, all the while wondering what the big deal was.
Like I said, focus on the mission, the rest of the puzzle will fix itself. Baby steps, folks.
Quote from: Pace on February 07, 2016, 09:46:56 PMAs society adapts legally, how will we make this work within our organization? What will it look like? Will it always be based on legal gender? Maybe. Will it require the designation of an additional bunking area?
Hard to say, mainly because I don't think the psychiatry (psychology?) field is far enough along in that area yet. We've barely managed to start figuring out transgender issues for adults, let alone adolescents.
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 07, 2016, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on February 07, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
No further responses from me will be forthcoming. Any PMs on the subject from you will be reported to the moderator as harassing and intolerant.
I dont care what side of the argument you are on... that was just silly. Welcome to the internet age where people can be harassed by PMs they dont have to open.
Hey, I caught an IG complaint like that one time.
"Sure, the CD officer has to be someone with a theological degree,"
Perhaps that was the case way back then. Not anymore (see CAPR 265-1).
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 12:28:29 PM
If there was a cadet who was an open trans anything in our squadron my family would withdraw.
How can CAP teach Christian moral values and allow something against natural law at the same time?
Secondly IMO a young person who believes he or she is a different sex is misguided and adults have an obligation to give them proper guidance.
It's not the CAP's place to teach "Christan moral values"
Further, as has been stated several times, this thread refers to the transgendered not transsexuals.
Quote from: Spam on February 07, 2016, 12:10:47 AM
CAP has no business either endorsing or restricting, promoting or suppressing, or even discussing sexual identity with minor children during their developmental phases.
Of course the CAP has not business endorsing or promotion sexual identity. However, if transgendered cadets are admitted (and they will have to be at least in California), then there will have to be discussion with the cadets, if only to avoid harassment.
As for relevance of official diagnosis, being transgender itself is not a mental disorder according to the American Psychiatric Association.
I am not a physician so I defer to expert opinion on the subject.
Quote from: RNOfficer on February 08, 2016, 01:42:16 AM
Of course the CAP has not business endorsing or promotion sexual identity. However, if transgendered cadets are admitted (and they will have to be at least in California), then there will have to be discussion with the cadets, if only to avoid harassment.
Bull.
I don't interview my cadets currently on their sexual preferences or inclinations currently, nor would I have any need to do so in the future to ensure that we comply with CPP provisions - for any variant of human.
I think you're waving a danger flag where none really exists, Major.
Cheers
Spam
Quote from: Spam on February 08, 2016, 03:20:14 AMI don't interview my cadets currently on their sexual preferences or inclinations currently, nor would I have any need to do so in the future to ensure that we comply with CPP provisions - for any variant of human.
To be fair, CAP and other organizations that put people into locker/barracks-room type situations have a challenge here that most organizations don't, in that someone's transgender status has a much higher potential to become known. (I haven't been to an encampment/NCSA in about 13 years, so I'm not sure how much has changed, but I see FLWG still has encampments at Tyndall and at Camp Blanding so I'm guessing not too much.) Transgender individuals can often pass unquestioned as their identified gender in most everyday situations - which is not a guaranteed thing in that kind of low-privacy environment. I can easily see someone's transgender status becoming an issue that needs addressing to some degree by senior members, simply by virtue of becoming known.
Also, Google probably now thinks I'm questioning my gender identity based on my search history from today.
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 07:14:18 PM
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on February 07, 2016, 04:29:56 PM
Quote from: bluehoodie on February 07, 2016, 03:14:05 PM
So you would be OK with a transvestite 6' 2" 5:00 shadow deep voice with heels and a blond wig helping your 13 year old son develop Core Values? Do you want your 14 year old daughter to spend all week a group of college aged female cadets who believe they are men? What a joke. I don't want my family anywhere near that type of perversion.
My single attempt to give a rational response to an irrational statement and individual...
As long as that 6'2" transvestite conforms with CAPR 39-1 and our grooming standards, I don't see the problem. If that person is teaching the Core Values as laid out by CAP then they're not teaching any perversion. It also should be pointed out that CAP doesn't provide a platform to stage a drag or burlesque show at cadet meetings. So, I really think your concern is truly for naught.
As far as your other concern of teaching Christian values, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in the Boy Scouts if that is your primary concern.
I realize CAP is not advertising to have a Tuesday night drag show after the pledge of allegiance but allowing openly transgender or transvestite people this is what we are accepting. It could very well be that we have a man dressed as a woman who is working with boys or a girl being with a group of older girl cadets who identity as male.
I don't know about you, but I'm not checking what kind of underwear anyone is wearing under their uniform. There are already policies in place for cadet protection, and a trans-anything is under the same regulations that everyone else is. It's called equality. If you look in CAPR 39-1, you'll notice that high heels aren't authorized to be worn with BDUs. It's a uniform, not a fashion show. So, it's a little difficult for a transvestite to be an openly transvestite at a cadet meeting. I've also been in CAP for over ten years now, been around the block quite a bit, and have yet to meet a transvestite in the ranks. So, there either aren't any, or they're not openly being one while involved in the program. Either case should satisfy your concerns.
I have known several transgendered and transsexual individuals in my lifetime, and not a single one of them has preached to me and encouraged me to become one myself. Frankly, they're not interested in recruiting. So, perhaps that will put your mind at ease. My hunch is that is that you too have probably known a few but Caitlyn Jenner is the only one you actually were ever aware of. Transgendered individuals go about life being the gender they have identified/reassigned with and simply want to be treated as such. They don't want to go around telling people that they used to be this and now they're that. So your fears of some drag queen walking into your cadet meeting and trying to recruit your 14-year old daughter is really quite silly and irrational.
Like others have said, if you're truly uncomfortable at the extremely remote prospect that some transvestite is going to influence your teenaged daughter and lure her into the woods to turn her into a transsexual, then you are under no obligation to stay in this organization.
You guys are making my head hurt.
As Ned previously stated: "Current CAP policy is to use the 'legal gender' of the member, based on the state of residence." Therefore, ANY discussion of "transvestites" is so totally moot as to be specious and silly. A "transvestite" is a person of one sex who dresses as the other sex. This is unlike "transgendered" or the more loaded "transsexual" terms. "Transvestite" is no more "transgendered" than a "transmission" is. Get your terms right.
As a male in a very real and legally binding sense (its on my membership paperwork, my DD-214, driver's license, etc), I cannot show up to a meeting dressed (even 39-1-compliant) as a female just because I have a predilection for that very slimming Shade 1520 AF Blue skirt. 5 o'clock shadow or otherwise. (honestly: Its the eye makeup that I can't abide by). My commander would be correctly within the policy to tell me I should go home and change (and take off that eye makeup)
Similarly, if a young man who is "transgendered" shows up to my squadron wanting to join CAP, and his legal sex is still listed as male, hey, sorry man, but you're getting a male uniform, and you're staying in the male barracks at encampment. Thats the policy.
As to all this other crap. Well, frankly, I'm astonished.
Quote from: Spam on February 08, 2016, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: RNOfficer on February 08, 2016, 01:42:16 AM
Of course the CAP has not business endorsing or promotion sexual identity. However, if transgendered cadets are admitted (and they will have to be at least in California), then there will have to be discussion with the cadets, if only to avoid harassment.
Bull.
I don't interview my cadets currently on their sexual preferences or inclinations currently, nor would I have any need to do so in the future to ensure that we comply with CPP provisions - for any variant of human.
I think you're waving a danger flag where none really exists, Major.
Not quite. Although I think the percentages are so limited that we're making quite the tempest in a teapot here.
Last fall or spring, my unit had a young lady join CAP who felt she was transgender. She kept her hair "male short," etc. One of her very first questions, and one that set the seniors alight with discussion, was her request to wear male uniforms. The DCC and the commander sat down with her and her parents and had a frank discussion about the policy. (I was peripherally involved since I "know about National." Righhht!) The bottom line was: she is a female on her birth certificate, non drivers ID card, etc. Unless and until she undergoes some sort of gender reassignment and has her gender legally changed, she's still a female and therefore would be treated as such for the purposes of uniforms and billeting.
It was utterly a moot point because, kind of as I expected, CAP didn't really appeal to her like she expected it would. She was a rather immediate first term loss.
Quote from: SouthernCross on February 08, 2016, 01:11:17 AM
"Sure, the CD officer has to be someone with a theological degree,"
Perhaps that was the case way back then. Not anymore (see CAPR 265-1).
Correct. Many CDIs do come to the role as part of their "ministry", and equally as many do not. I'm a CDI in the former category. I thoroughly enjoy my work and I'm quite content to work within the restrictions that are necessarily and rightly placed upon me. Challenging and enjoyable!
As a point of history, CDIs (MLOs as they were) were never *required* to have a degree in theology; the standard was (IIRC) 60 semester hours post-secondary education. The idea of them being demi Chaplains died very early on!
Back to your schedule program, currently in progress!
Quote from: NIN on February 08, 2016, 11:55:38 AM
You guys are making my head hurt.
As Ned previously stated: "Current CAP policy is to use the 'legal gender' of the member, based on the state of residence." Therefore, ANY discussion of "transvestites" is so totally moot as to be specious and silly. A "transvestite" is a person of one sex who dresses as the other sex. This is unlike "transgendered" or the more loaded "transsexual" terms. "Transvestite" is no more "transgendered" than a "transmission" is. Get your terms right.
As a male in a very real and legally binding sense (its on my membership paperwork, my DD-214, driver's license, etc), I cannot show up to a meeting dressed (even 39-1-compliant) as a female just because I have a predilection for that very slimming Shade 1520 AF Blue skirt. 5 o'clock shadow or otherwise. (honestly: Its the eye makeup that I can't abide by). My commander would be correctly within the policy to tell me I should go home and change (and take off that eye makeup)
Similarly, if a young man who is "transgendered" shows up to my squadron wanting to join CAP, and his legal sex is still listed as male, hey, sorry man, but you're getting a male uniform, and you're staying in the male barracks at encampment. Thats the policy.
As to all this other crap. Well, frankly, I'm astonished.
And that policy can be found where? I asked a bit earlier on in the thread. It's not in the regulation concerning membership, and it's not in the nondiscrimination policy.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 02:24:47 PM
Quote from: NIN on February 08, 2016, 11:55:38 AM
You guys are making my head hurt.
As Ned previously stated: "Current CAP policy is to use the 'legal gender' of the member, based on the state of residence." Therefore, ANY discussion of "transvestites" is so totally moot as to be specious and silly. A "transvestite" is a person of one sex who dresses as the other sex. This is unlike "transgendered" or the more loaded "transsexual" terms. "Transvestite" is no more "transgendered" than a "transmission" is. Get your terms right.
As a male in a very real and legally binding sense (its on my membership paperwork, my DD-214, driver's license, etc), I cannot show up to a meeting dressed (even 39-1-compliant) as a female just because I have a predilection for that very slimming Shade 1520 AF Blue skirt. 5 o'clock shadow or otherwise. (honestly: Its the eye makeup that I can't abide by). My commander would be correctly within the policy to tell me I should go home and change (and take off that eye makeup)
Similarly, if a young man who is "transgendered" shows up to my squadron wanting to join CAP, and his legal sex is still listed as male, hey, sorry man, but you're getting a male uniform, and you're staying in the male barracks at encampment. Thats the policy.
As to all this other crap. Well, frankly, I'm astonished.
And that policy can be found where? I asked a bit earlier on in the thread. It's not in the regulation concerning membership, and it's not in the nondiscrimination policy.
I would concur with you. If there is a "policy" it has been rather poorly communicated from the echelons above reality to the local level where actual decisions are made.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 02:24:47 PM
Quote from: NIN on February 08, 2016, 11:55:38 AM
You guys are making my head hurt.
As Ned previously stated: "Current CAP policy is to use the 'legal gender' of the member, based on the state of residence." Therefore, ANY discussion of "transvestites" is so totally moot as to be specious and silly. A "transvestite" is a person of one sex who dresses as the other sex. This is unlike "transgendered" or the more loaded "transsexual" terms. "Transvestite" is no more "transgendered" than a "transmission" is. Get your terms right.
As a male in a very real and legally binding sense (its on my membership paperwork, my DD-214, driver's license, etc), I cannot show up to a meeting dressed (even 39-1-compliant) as a female just because I have a predilection for that very slimming Shade 1520 AF Blue skirt. 5 o'clock shadow or otherwise. (honestly: Its the eye makeup that I can't abide by). My commander would be correctly within the policy to tell me I should go home and change (and take off that eye makeup)
Similarly, if a young man who is "transgendered" shows up to my squadron wanting to join CAP, and his legal sex is still listed as male, hey, sorry man, but you're getting a male uniform, and you're staying in the male barracks at encampment. Thats the policy.
As to all this other crap. Well, frankly, I'm astonished.
And that policy can be found where? I asked a bit earlier on in the thread. It's not in the regulation concerning membership, and it's not in the nondiscrimination policy.
It doesn't have to be. If one is legally a male or female, then the law prevails (whether we like it or not). You want to be treated like the opposite gender, then go through the proper legal process to make that change.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 02:24:47 PM
And that policy can be found where? I asked a bit earlier on in the thread. It's not in the regulation concerning membership, and it's not in the nondiscrimination policy.
Not sure. I've been told by a National Staff Officer (*cough* Nedly!) that the question had come up and thus far the "official policy" was as he stated.
I suppose that its probably one of those "doesn't come up often, so its not made its way into the regs yet" kind of things.
Quote from: Spam on February 08, 2016, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: RNOfficer on February 08, 2016, 01:42:16 AM
Of course the CAP has not business endorsing or promotion sexual identity. However, if transgendered cadets are admitted (and they will have to be at least in California), then there will have to be discussion with the cadets, if only to avoid harassment.
Bull.
I don't interview my cadets currently on their sexual preferences or inclinations currently, nor would I have any need to do so in the future to ensure that we comply with CPP provisions
http://youtu.be/eeNsPE5XUXA (http://youtu.be/eeNsPE5XUXA)
Quote from: NIN on February 08, 2016, 02:50:57 PM
Not sure. I've been told by a National Staff Officer (*cough* Nedly!) that the question had come up and thus far the "official policy" was as he stated.
I suppose that its probably one of those "doesn't come up often, so its not made its way into the regs yet" kind of things.
The actual sequence was something like this:
1941 - 2013: No official policy on transgender members. It just didn't seem to come up, and if it did it was handled locally by seasoned CP officers and commanders.
2014: Several cadets self-identified as transgender and asked appropriate questions about things like uniforms, billeting, PT standards, etc. The National Commander convened a pretty high-power committee composed of SMEs and stakeholders (including senior commanders, parents, cadets, chaplain, and old-hand CP types) which produced a report that recommended the "legal gender" position, which was subsequently considered and adopted by the senior leadership. It then became "official policy," with guidance to staff to respond to questions from the field. Staff was also directed to figure out where to include the policy in our regulations. Since the committee and surrounding discussions were focused on CP, our initial thought was to put it into the 52-16 and maybe the 52-10.
2015: As part of that discussion, follow-on questions developed as to whether this really was a "CP-centric" or full membership policy. If it was a full membership policy, it probably belongs in our non-discrimination and membership regulations, not a CP publication. While that discussion was active in staff channels, the National Commander appointed a different committee with a slightly different mandate to examine the issues on a membership-wide basis. That committee is still actively working the issues, plus CP continues to research contemporary best practices among other youth organizations to see how they handle the issue.
So, the official "legal gender" policy is not yet included in our regulations or other publications; probably until the current committee makes recommendations and the command group directs the staff as to which publications the policy should be included.
The KB idea is a good one. Let me see if I can make that happen.
Preparing to be "burned at the stake" :)
As a CAP Chaplain, here is the course of action that I would recommend to my commander or any one in the unit with questions:
1) seek out the Wing legal advice/counsel;
2) brush up on the policies/regulations regarding membership in CAP;
3) follow the Core Values of CAP.
These are items that govern our conduct within a secular/pluralistic environment. A CAP Chaplain, according to the CAPR 265-2 "Covenant and Code of Ethics", basically is a defender of the First Amendment rights of all members and is a provider of ministry (service) to all members of CAP and their families.
There may be some complexities here when it comes to legal matters or how to facilitate matters...but for me is a simple mindset. My role is to assist the commander in making the best decision on behalf of that member and this organization -- that is where our policies/regs/and Core Values come in.
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 04:52:28 PM
Quote from: NIN on February 08, 2016, 02:50:57 PM
Not sure. I've been told by a National Staff Officer (*cough* Nedly!) that the question had come up and thus far the "official policy" was as he stated.
I suppose that its probably one of those "doesn't come up often, so its not made its way into the regs yet" kind of things.
The actual sequence was something like this:
1941 - 2013: No official policy on transgender members. It just didn't seem to come up, and if it did it was handled locally by seasoned CP officers and commanders.
2014: Several cadets self-identified as transgender and asked appropriate questions about things like uniforms, billeting, PT standards, etc. The National Commander convened a pretty high-power committee composed of SMEs and stakeholders (including senior commanders, parents, cadets, chaplain, and old-hand CP types) which produced a report that recommended the "legal gender" position, which was subsequently considered and adopted by the senior leadership. It then became "official policy," with guidance to staff to respond to questions from the field. Staff was also directed to figure out where to include the policy in our regulations. Since the committee and surrounding discussions were focused on CP, our initial thought was to put it into the 52-16 and maybe the 52-10.
2015: As part of that discussion, follow-on questions developed as to whether this really was a "CP-centric" or full membership policy. If it was a full membership policy, it probably belongs in our non-discrimination and membership regulations, not a CP publication. While that discussion was active in staff channels, the National Commander appointed a different committee with a slightly different mandate to examine the issues on a membership-wide basis. That committee is still actively working the issues, plus CP continues to research contemporary best practices among other youth organizations to see how they handle the issue.
So, the official "legal gender" policy is not yet included in our regulations or other publications; probably until the current committee makes recommendations and the command group directs the staff as to which publications the policy should be included.
The KB idea is a good one. Let me see if I can make that happen.
So, officially, there is no "official" policy. In the interim, is there a chance of something in the form of a written order from the NC to all subordinate commanders that until such time a regulatory policy is adopted, that the "legal gender" of the member be used as the decision point? Which brings up another question: what is the "legal gender"? Is it what appears on the license/state issued ID? If so, there are some states where that can be changed and it does not have to match what is on other "legally acceptable" documents.... Or is it the gender indicated on the birth certificate, which can also be changed...
Sick of me yet?
THRAWN, I have the exact same questions. Officially, we have no official policy. Will this protect those of us that work in Cadet Programs when a family on either side of this thorny issue decides to take legal action.
No offense everybody, but "deal with these issues as they happen," and "do your best...use your best judgement," is not a policy. "I was just following the policy that we don't really have yet, because we have appointed several committees a while back," does not sound like a sound legal defense.
Like many others here, I support the LGBT community. In my youth I had many friends that had to keep their identity a safely guarded secret, to the point of living false lives and lies. I am happy that those days are behind us. However, logistically speaking we need guidance and real policy. Back in our History we can be sure that there were many members of the LGBT community in CAP. They lived in a constant fear of being discovered. Today, these same individuals will demand, and rightfully so, their equal place at the table and in activities. We must create the environment that protects the dignity and respect of all involved.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 08:33:04 PM
So, officially, there is no "official" policy. In the interim, is there a chance of something in the form of a written order from the NC to all subordinate commanders that until such time a regulatory policy is adopted, that the "legal gender" of the member be used as the decision point? Which brings up another question: what is the "legal gender"? Is it what appears on the license/state issued ID? If so, there are some states where that can be changed and it does not have to match what is on other "legally acceptable" documents.... Or is it the gender indicated on the birth certificate, which can also be changed...
Non-concur.
When the general announces the official policy, it is the official policy until it changes. Whether it is written down at the time goes to how effectively it is communicated, not whether the policy is official or not.
And "legal gender" means whatever it means in the state concerned. Not all the states are the same, but for our purposes, it is generally the gender reflected on official government documents, like birth certificates, government IDs, etc. Every state has a process to allow "correction" of these kinds of documents. So when the state changes their recognition of an individual's gender, so would we. Just show us the associated paperwork.
And keep in mind that laws change, and some states will have different standards to recognize gender change. Just like with the "cadet medication issues," it is unlikely that NHQ can ever realistically keep track of the 50 states' differing laws, let alone the odd Commonwealth and foreign countries where we have cadets. That's why we have legal officers in each state - to keep track of local laws and advise commanders.
I like talking with legal officers. They're nice people. And standing by to help you in these kinds of circumstances.
Remember, we
have an official policy. It may or may not change as the commanders direct, but we have a policy. And we at the NHQ staff are happy to work with CP officers and commanders to explain and help implement it.
Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
Remember, we have an official policy. It may or may not change as the commanders direct, but we have a policy. And we at the NHQ staff are happy to work with CP officers and commanders to explain and help implement it.
Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
You may have official policy, but until such time as the echelons-above-reality choose to communicate that policy to those in the field, it doesn't really exist.
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 08:33:04 PM
So, officially, there is no "official" policy. In the interim, is there a chance of something in the form of a written order from the NC to all subordinate commanders that until such time a regulatory policy is adopted, that the "legal gender" of the member be used as the decision point? Which brings up another question: what is the "legal gender"? Is it what appears on the license/state issued ID? If so, there are some states where that can be changed and it does not have to match what is on other "legally acceptable" documents.... Or is it the gender indicated on the birth certificate, which can also be changed...
Non-concur.
When the general announces the official policy, it is the official policy until it changes. Whether it is written down at the time goes to how effectively it is communicated, not whether the policy is official or not.
And "legal gender" means whatever it means in the state concerned. Not all the states are the same, but for our purposes, it is generally the gender reflected on official government documents, like birth certificates, government IDs, etc. Every state has a process to allow "correction" of these kinds of documents. So when the state changes their recognition of an individual's gender, so would we. Just show us the associated paperwork.
And keep in mind that laws change, and some states will have different standards to recognize gender change. Just like with the "cadet medication issues," it is unlikely that NHQ can ever realistically keep track of the 50 states' differing laws, let alone the odd Commonwealth and foreign countries where we have cadets. That's why we have legal officers in each state - to keep track of local laws and advise commanders.
I like talking with legal officers. They're nice people. And standing by to help you in these kinds of circumstances.
Remember, we have an official policy. It may or may not change as the commanders direct, but we have a policy. And we at the NHQ staff are happy to work with CP officers and commanders to explain and help implement it.
Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
In a perfect world, sure it works that way. but VOCO in this case? It goes whisper down the lane through the chain to the squadron commander in Toledo? What happens when the genders on the docs don't match? Which one is the real gender? 39-2 has a nice chart that puts the state issued ID as acceptable in tandem with a birth certificate. If those two documents have different genders, what is the deciding factor? I'm sure Maj Gen Vazquez has given this some thought. It would be nice to have those thoughts on this very sensitive subject directly given to those that are being confronted with it.
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:06:57 PM
What happens when the genders on the docs don't match? Which one is the real gender? 39-2 has a nice chart that puts the state issued ID as acceptable in tandem with a birth certificate. If those two documents have different genders, what is the deciding factor? I'm sure Maj Gen Vazquez has given this some thought. It would be nice to have those thoughts on this very sensitive subject directly given to those that are being confronted with it.
This has been covered. The document with the latest date wins.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:06:57 PM
What happens when the genders on the docs don't match? Which one is the real gender? 39-2 has a nice chart that puts the state issued ID as acceptable in tandem with a birth certificate. If those two documents have different genders, what is the deciding factor? I'm sure Maj Gen Vazquez has given this some thought. It would be nice to have those thoughts on this very sensitive subject directly given to those that are being confronted with it.
This has been covered. The document with the latest date wins.
Sorry if I missed that, but can you quote it? If that's the case, then the chart in 39-2 is useless because I guarantee that anybody with a license was issued that well after their birth certificate.
Quote from: JeffDG on February 08, 2016, 09:04:34 PM
You may have official policy, but until such time as the echelons-above-reality choose to communicate that policy to those in the field, it doesn't really exist.
We (you, me, and CAP)
have an official policy.
I can only agree that written policies are more easily communicated, but that doesn't mean they are not official.
Look, as a practical matter we are not talking about court- martialing anyone for not following a policy they weren't aware of. If anyone doesn't know what the policy is, you and I can tell them. If anyone calls NHQ, they will be told the policy. All of us have a responsibility to follow the polices of CAP, whether they are written or otherwise expressed.
Rather than focusing on the best way to express a policy, I encourage the discussion of what changes, if any, we should make to our policy.
I'd love to see a discussion of how we should reach out to members, parents, and stakeholders about our policies and the educational materials, if any, we should make available to our leaders to help them work through the very real issues we all face at the local units.
:o Did I really just read that WE have a policy, but it is not written down anywhere and if we need to know what it is call HQ and get VOCO???? In an issue as potentially nightmarish as this, to go VOCO is not only very risky, in my humble opinion, dangerous.
We need a written policy with out delay. PLEASE.
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 09:31:48 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on February 08, 2016, 09:04:34 PM
You may have official policy, but until such time as the echelons-above-reality choose to communicate that policy to those in the field, it doesn't really exist.
We (you, me, and CAP) have an official policy.
If that policy has not been effectively communicated to those actually charged with implementing that policy (local commanders), then no. You have the idea of a policy, but the policy doesn't actually exist in a meaningful or practical way.
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 09:31:48 PM
I can only agree that written policies are more easily communicated, but that doesn't mean they are not official.
I think it's clear here that the "policy" has not been communicated in any effective way to local commanders. It's a policy aspiration until such time as that happens. I really don't care how it's communicated, but some policy that exists only within the echelons-above-reality that they somehow magically expect to be implemented by those they've never told it exists, is not a policy for all intents and purposes.
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 09:31:48 PM
Rather than focusing on the best way to express a policy, I encourage the discussion of what changes, if any, we should make to our policy.
I don't care if it's the "best way to express a policy", I just care that the "policy" actually be expressed to those charged with implementation therof.
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 09:31:48 PMI'd love to see a discussion of how we should reach out to members, parents, and stakeholders about our policies and the educational materials, if any, we should make available to our leaders to help them work through the very real issues we all face at the local units.
E-mail to all commanders. Here's the policy. Done. So long as no communications goes out to local units, the policy is of no effect. May as well not have it.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 08, 2016, 09:38:14 PM
We need a written policy with out delay. PLEASE.
I hear you. I think it is all of our preference that we have a policy that is easily accessible and understood by the membership, parents, and stakeholders. I'm looking in the KB thing to see if that helps.
But let's put this in perspective, For over 70 years we have survived just fine without any policy at all, relying on the common sense and experience of members like you. And the world has not ended. No one has been hurt, no lawsuits, and million or so cadets have taken steps to become Dynamic American Aerospace Leaders.
As soon as the current committee has presented their recommendations and the command group has decided what changes, if any, to make to our existing policy, I have every confidence that it will appear in one or more CAP regulations or other documents.
It bears repeating that anyone who needs guidance on our existing policy can confer with their chain of command and NHQ to receive the necessary support and guidance.
Please, lets talk about
substance of what the policy is or should be rather than
form in which it is communicated.
Please.
Again, until the "policy" is communicated in some way, it's a "policy aspiration" not an "existing policy". If the committee is still working, then the policy doesn't exist at all.
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 09:46:21 PM
Please, lets talk about substance of what the policy is or should be rather than form in which it is communicated.
I really don't care what the substance of the policy is. I do care that it be communicated IN SOME FORM. I don't care what the form is. But until that is done, it's a completely ineffective "policy".
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:06:57 PM
What happens when the genders on the docs don't match? Which one is the real gender? 39-2 has a nice chart that puts the state issued ID as acceptable in tandem with a birth certificate. If those two documents have different genders, what is the deciding factor? I'm sure Maj Gen Vazquez has given this some thought. It would be nice to have those thoughts on this very sensitive subject directly given to those that are being confronted with it.
This has been covered. The document with the latest date wins.
Sorry if I missed that, but can you quote it? If that's the case, then the chart in 39-2 is useless because I guarantee that anybody with a license was issued that well after their birth certificate.
That would be a later date. If someone is born january 1, 1995, and their birth cert says "MALE," and their state ID dated January 1, 2016 says "FEMALE", the state ID wins.
Not to belabor the issue....the policy is there. Unfortunately, the information if sent to a commander in a email is only as good as the commander's memory or the passing along of corporate knowledge.
Also keep in mind that CAP committee work is tedious and the process takes time. The committee members are individuals just like you and me (having served on my fair-share). They can meet for months via email/Skype/FreeConference call (or other methods) deliberating and exchanging ideas before their proposal/report is concluded and submitted.
This issue is one that is being taking very seriously and those who have been selected to serve on the committees are knowledgeable folks. They will get it right.
Hence, my simple counsel offered before: contact Wing Legal. They should be in a position to know/convey the respective state's legal stance and know who to contact at NHQ for the CAP policy. Through my personal experiences, the legal officer is my best friend. It's one thing to think about a situation wearing the cross, but another where you have to think in terms of the CAP corporation. Echoing Ned's earlier remarks, "I like talking with legal officers. They're nice people." They have stood by/with me in a couple of situations for which I am grateful for.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 09:56:23 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:06:57 PM
What happens when the genders on the docs don't match? Which one is the real gender? 39-2 has a nice chart that puts the state issued ID as acceptable in tandem with a birth certificate. If those two documents have different genders, what is the deciding factor? I'm sure Maj Gen Vazquez has given this some thought. It would be nice to have those thoughts on this very sensitive subject directly given to those that are being confronted with it.
This has been covered. The document with the latest date wins.
Sorry if I missed that, but can you quote it? If that's the case, then the chart in 39-2 is useless because I guarantee that anybody with a license was issued that well after their birth certificate.
That would be a later date. If someone is born january 1, 1995, and their birth cert says "MALE," and their state ID dated January 1, 2016 says "FEMALE", the state ID wins.
Didn't answer the question. Where is that covered? Is it an official "policy" or more CAPTALK Tales?
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:58:13 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 09:56:23 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:06:57 PM
What happens when the genders on the docs don't match? Which one is the real gender? 39-2 has a nice chart that puts the state issued ID as acceptable in tandem with a birth certificate. If those two documents have different genders, what is the deciding factor? I'm sure Maj Gen Vazquez has given this some thought. It would be nice to have those thoughts on this very sensitive subject directly given to those that are being confronted with it.
This has been covered. The document with the latest date wins.
Sorry if I missed that, but can you quote it? If that's the case, then the chart in 39-2 is useless because I guarantee that anybody with a license was issued that well after their birth certificate.
That would be a later date. If someone is born january 1, 1995, and their birth cert says "MALE," and their state ID dated January 1, 2016 says "FEMALE", the state ID wins.
Didn't answer the question. Where is that covered? Is it an official "policy" or more CAPTALK Tales?
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 08:33:04 PM
So, officially, there is no "official" policy. In the interim, is there a chance of something in the form of a written order from the NC to all subordinate commanders that until such time a regulatory policy is adopted, that the "legal gender" of the member be used as the decision point? Which brings up another question: what is the "legal gender"? Is it what appears on the license/state issued ID? If so, there are some states where that can be changed and it does not have to match what is on other "legally acceptable" documents.... Or is it the gender indicated on the birth certificate, which can also be changed...
Non-concur.
When the general announces the official policy, it is the official policy until it changes. Whether it is written down at the time goes to how effectively it is communicated, not whether the policy is official or not.
And "legal gender" means whatever it means in the state concerned. Not all the states are the same, but for our purposes, it is generally the gender reflected on official government documents, like birth certificates, government IDs, etc. Every state has a process to allow "correction" of these kinds of documents. So when the state changes their recognition of an individual's gender, so would we. Just show us the associated paperwork.
And keep in mind that laws change, and some states will have different standards to recognize gender change. Just like with the "cadet medication issues," it is unlikely that NHQ can ever realistically keep track of the 50 states' differing laws, let alone the odd Commonwealth and foreign countries where we have cadets. That's why we have legal officers in each state - to keep track of local laws and advise commanders.
I like talking with legal officers. They're nice people. And standing by to help you in these kinds of circumstances.
Remember, we have an official policy. It may or may not change as the commanders direct, but we have a policy. And we at the NHQ staff are happy to work with CP officers and commanders to explain and help implement it.
Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
The bolded plus common sense equals what I posted. And really, everything Ned posted there is also common sense. If you think it isn't so common, use his and follow that directive.
Quote from: Chappie on February 08, 2016, 09:57:20 PM
Not to belabor the issue....the policy is there. Unfortunately, the information if sent to a commander in a email is only as good as the commander's memory or the passing along of corporate knowledge.
Hence, my simple counsel offered before: contact Wing Legal. They should be in a position to know/convey the respective state's legal stance and know who to contact at NHQ for the CAP policy. Through my personal experiences, the legal officer is my best friend. It's one thing to think about a situation wearing the cross, but another where you have to think in terms of the CAP corporation. Echoing Ned's earlier remarks, "I like talking with legal officers. They're nice people." They have stood by/with me in a couple of situations for which I am grateful for.
And an "official policy" that is spoken is better? Commanders should not have to contact their lawyers about this. Issue a policy that says, in one sentence, "When a trans(whatever) applicant joins CAP, their gender identity is based on the government issued ID with the latest date." No confusion, no ambiguity that seems to be the driving energy of the legal profession, no question about how that applicant is to be identified.
Quote from: Chappie on February 08, 2016, 09:57:20 PM
Not to belabor the issue....the policy is there. Unfortunately, the information if sent to a commander in a email is only as good as the commander's memory or the passing along of corporate knowledge.
Hence, my simple counsel offered before: contact Wing Legal. They should be in a position to know/convey the respective state's legal stance and know who to contact at NHQ for the CAP policy. Through my personal experiences, the legal officer is my best friend. It's one thing to think about a situation wearing the cross, but another where you have to think in terms of the CAP corporation. Echoing Ned's earlier remarks, "I like talking with legal officers. They're nice people." They have stood by/with me in a couple of situations for which I am grateful for.
It's orders of magnitude better than a "policy" where there has been no attempt to communicate it outside the echelons-above-reality.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 09:59:20 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:58:13 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 09:56:23 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 09:06:57 PM
What happens when the genders on the docs don't match? Which one is the real gender? 39-2 has a nice chart that puts the state issued ID as acceptable in tandem with a birth certificate. If those two documents have different genders, what is the deciding factor? I'm sure Maj Gen Vazquez has given this some thought. It would be nice to have those thoughts on this very sensitive subject directly given to those that are being confronted with it.
This has been covered. The document with the latest date wins.
Sorry if I missed that, but can you quote it? If that's the case, then the chart in 39-2 is useless because I guarantee that anybody with a license was issued that well after their birth certificate.
That would be a later date. If someone is born january 1, 1995, and their birth cert says "MALE," and their state ID dated January 1, 2016 says "FEMALE", the state ID wins.
Didn't answer the question. Where is that covered? Is it an official "policy" or more CAPTALK Tales?
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on February 08, 2016, 08:33:04 PM
So, officially, there is no "official" policy. In the interim, is there a chance of something in the form of a written order from the NC to all subordinate commanders that until such time a regulatory policy is adopted, that the "legal gender" of the member be used as the decision point? Which brings up another question: what is the "legal gender"? Is it what appears on the license/state issued ID? If so, there are some states where that can be changed and it does not have to match what is on other "legally acceptable" documents.... Or is it the gender indicated on the birth certificate, which can also be changed...
Non-concur.
When the general announces the official policy, it is the official policy until it changes. Whether it is written down at the time goes to how effectively it is communicated, not whether the policy is official or not.
And "legal gender" means whatever it means in the state concerned. Not all the states are the same, but for our purposes, it is generally the gender reflected on official government documents, like birth certificates, government IDs, etc. Every state has a process to allow "correction" of these kinds of documents. So when the state changes their recognition of an individual's gender, so would we. Just show us the associated paperwork.
And keep in mind that laws change, and some states will have different standards to recognize gender change. Just like with the "cadet medication issues," it is unlikely that NHQ can ever realistically keep track of the 50 states' differing laws, let alone the odd Commonwealth and foreign countries where we have cadets. That's why we have legal officers in each state - to keep track of local laws and advise commanders.
I like talking with legal officers. They're nice people. And standing by to help you in these kinds of circumstances.
Remember, we have an official policy. It may or may not change as the commanders direct, but we have a policy. And we at the NHQ staff are happy to work with CP officers and commanders to explain and help implement it.
Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager
The bolded plus common sense equals what I posted.
Common sense? What is common sense to one, makes no sense to another. You know that. If it is in writing, it's real. If it is in fact official, there should be no issue getting it in writing.
Maybe I missed it, but I'm keenly interested in what NHQ's thoughts on cadet billeting with this situation are. I know it's been asked several times but I'm not sure if I missed the answer. "Treat them like the state treats them" works when we're just talking about regular meetings and activities, but I have some concerns for overnight activities.
My understanding of this situation is that we do not want to cause negative psychological consequences on a young person who is already dealing with the stresses of growing up, plus the stress of dealing with their own gender identity. I get that, and even support it to some extent. However, when we extend this policy to overnight cadet activities, we now marginalize the potential concerns and "uncomfortableness" of the majority of cadets who do identify with their biological gender, in favor of preventing "unfomfortableness" on the part of the minority that do not. And that is not cool in my book either - we should not be inflicting potential harm on one group of youths in order to prevent potential harm to another. I think billeting separately is a somewhat fair compromise, but not every activity will have that option available. Then what do we do?
As far as seniors go, I really don't care, for both regular activities and overnight. Adults are adults, and therefore are (should be) capable of managing their own feelings and "uncomfortableness" in a way that both accomplishes the mission and ensures that their own issues are resolved.
I don't think my concerns are particularly unique nor are my views new. I'm just as eager as everyone else is to see how this shakes out. And as far as the publication of a policy goes, I know we don't want to talk about it Ned, but we really do need something written. I think that there is a very rational fear (given the litigious state of our society) among some of our commanders and CP officers that they may be named personally in a lawsuit from either camp, and therefore want to be able to point to a policy and state "The actions I took were consistent with Civil Air Patrol policy XYZ, published ABC, that states LMNOP." As leaders, it is our job to help our followers do their job. If they have specific concerns related to their job, isn't it then our job to ensure those concerns are addressed as best as possible? In this case, "as best as possible" means "let's get something in writing", even if it is interim.
Yes Thrawn if a person produces an ID as identified in the membership reg saying they are XYZ (even if their birth certificate said ZYX) then they are XYZ. And this policy is available to any one who asks for it.
It is exactly what happened at my squadron two years ago.
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 09:31:48 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on February 08, 2016, 09:04:34 PM
You may have official policy, but until such time as the echelons-above-reality choose to communicate that policy to those in the field, it doesn't really exist.
We (you, me, and CAP) have an official policy.
I can only agree that written policies are more easily communicated, but that doesn't mean they are not official.
Look, as a practical matter we are not talking about court- martialing anyone for not following a policy they weren't aware of. If anyone doesn't know what the policy is, you and I can tell them. If anyone calls NHQ, they will be told the policy. All of us have a responsibility to follow the polices of CAP, whether they are written or otherwise expressed.
Rather than focusing on the best way to express a policy, I encourage the discussion of what changes, if any, we should make to our policy.
I'd love to see a discussion of how we should reach out to members, parents, and stakeholders about our policies and the educational materials, if any, we should make available to our leaders to help them work through the very real issues we all face at the local units.
NED says there is an "official policy" relating to this issue. This policy is not written, but communicated from the National Commander down thru the chain to the membership. This policy is being discussed in a formal committee which will recommend changes, modifications, and such to the commander for final disposition. I'm sure any unit commander can get the current policy when requested. I'm sure there will be a time frame for members to contribute to the committee's work product.
So, in the meantime, I would suggest commanders reach out to the members when a need occurs, or make this the focus of a CDO/Chaplain project for the membership. The more informed we are, the better able we will deal with this; both on an emotional and logistical matter.
Quote from: FW on February 08, 2016, 10:28:44 PM
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 09:31:48 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on February 08, 2016, 09:04:34 PM
You may have official policy, but until such time as the echelons-above-reality choose to communicate that policy to those in the field, it doesn't really exist.
We (you, me, and CAP) have an official policy.
I can only agree that written policies are more easily communicated, but that doesn't mean they are not official.
Look, as a practical matter we are not talking about court- martialing anyone for not following a policy they weren't aware of. If anyone doesn't know what the policy is, you and I can tell them. If anyone calls NHQ, they will be told the policy. All of us have a responsibility to follow the polices of CAP, whether they are written or otherwise expressed.
Rather than focusing on the best way to express a policy, I encourage the discussion of what changes, if any, we should make to our policy.
I'd love to see a discussion of how we should reach out to members, parents, and stakeholders about our policies and the educational materials, if any, we should make available to our leaders to help them work through the very real issues we all face at the local units.
NED says there is an "official policy" relating to this issue. This policy is not written, but communicated from the National Commander down thru the chain to the membership. This policy is being discussed in a formal committee which will recommend changes, modifications, and such to the commander for final disposition. I'm sure any unit commander can get the current policy when requested. I'm sure there will be a time frame for members to contribute to the committee's work product.
So, in the meantime, I would suggest commanders reach out to the members when a need occurs, or make this the focus of a CDO/Chaplain project for the membership. The more informed we are, the better able we will deal with this; both on an emotional and logistical matter.
But that's the point. It hasn't been communicated down the chain, in any form.
Quote from: JeffDG on February 08, 2016, 10:30:44 PM
Quote from: FW on February 08, 2016, 10:28:44 PM
Quote from: Ned on February 08, 2016, 09:31:48 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on February 08, 2016, 09:04:34 PM
You may have official policy, but until such time as the echelons-above-reality choose to communicate that policy to those in the field, it doesn't really exist.
We (you, me, and CAP) have an official policy.
I can only agree that written policies are more easily communicated, but that doesn't mean they are not official.
Look, as a practical matter we are not talking about court- martialing anyone for not following a policy they weren't aware of. If anyone doesn't know what the policy is, you and I can tell them. If anyone calls NHQ, they will be told the policy. All of us have a responsibility to follow the polices of CAP, whether they are written or otherwise expressed.
Rather than focusing on the best way to express a policy, I encourage the discussion of what changes, if any, we should make to our policy.
I'd love to see a discussion of how we should reach out to members, parents, and stakeholders about our policies and the educational materials, if any, we should make available to our leaders to help them work through the very real issues we all face at the local units.
NED says there is an "official policy" relating to this issue. This policy is not written, but communicated from the National Commander down thru the chain to the membership. This policy is being discussed in a formal committee which will recommend changes, modifications, and such to the commander for final disposition. I'm sure any unit commander can get the current policy when requested. I'm sure there will be a time frame for members to contribute to the committee's work product.
So, in the meantime, I would suggest commanders reach out to the members when a need occurs, or make this the focus of a CDO/Chaplain project for the membership. The more informed we are, the better able we will deal with this; both on an emotional and logistical matter.
But that's the point. It hasn't been communicated down the chain, in any form.
You know what you are supposed to do when you need to address something that isn't in the regs that you aren't sure about? Go through your chain of command.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
You know what you are supposed to do when you need to address something that isn't in the regs that you aren't sure about? Go through your chain of command.
Actually, the purpose of having subordinate commanders is use their best judgement. If everything had to go through the chain-of-command, then CAP/CC is going to be fielding a lot of repetitive questions. Which is why the "policy" should be communicated out. If a commander were to ask me (were I not on here)..."Hey, I've got this happening, what do I do?" My response before reading this would be "Well, the regulations don't cover that, use your best judgement."
Quote from: JeffDG on February 08, 2016, 10:39:47 PM
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on February 08, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
You know what you are supposed to do when you need to address something that isn't in the regs that you aren't sure about? Go through your chain of command.
Actually, the purpose of having subordinate commanders is use their best judgement. If everything had to go through the chain-of-command, then CAP/CC is going to be fielding a lot of repetitive questions. Which is why the "policy" should be communicated out. If a commander were to ask me (were I not on here)..."Hey, I've got this happening, what do I do?" My response before reading this would be "Well, the regulations don't cover that, use your best judgement."
This is why I said: "something in the regs that you aren't sure about."
If you have common sense, use your best judgement. If you decide you need direction, get direction. Common sense says that if someone has an ID that says they are one thing, and another ID that says something else, one of two scenarios has occurred (not in any order):
1. Fraud
2. Legal status change
In the case of 1, you contact the appropriate authorities. In the case of 2, you use the data on the most recent form.
And I doubt anyone in a command chain is going to think you're being too careful if you decide to kick this question up the chain of command.
This isn't rocket surgery.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 08, 2016, 10:16:39 PM
Yes Thrawn if a person produces an ID as identified in the membership reg saying they are XYZ (even if their birth certificate said ZYX) then they are XYZ. And this policy is available to any one who asks for it.
It is exactly what happened at my squadron two years ago.
This sounds suspiciously logical and simple.
"But that's the point. It hasn't been communicated down the chain, in any form."
Jeff, that may be true, however a senior staff member, and former member of the CAP Board of Governors stated there is an official policy. There should be no problem for any commander to receive it. My best guess this hasn't been a priority for dissemination is, because of the small percentage possibility it will be needed. Most likely, a call to the GC's office will produce all the information you will need. This information could be supplemented by a Chaplain or CDO with experience in these matters.
But, this is just my opinion. It's hard enough dealing with "normal" teens going thru adolescence... As for adults, that is next to impossible! >:D
Quote from: FW on February 08, 2016, 10:51:33 PM
"But that's the point. It hasn't been communicated down the chain, in any form."
Jeff, that may be true, however a senior staff member, and former member of the CAP Board of Governors stated there is an official policy. There should be no problem for any commander to receive it. My best guess this hasn't been a priority for dissemination is, because of the small percentage possibility it will be needed. Most likely, a call to the GC's office will produce all the information you will need. This information could be supplemented by a Chaplain or CDO with experience in these matters.
But, this is just my opinion. It's hard enough dealing with "normal" teens going thru adolescence... As for adults, that is next to impossible! >:D
OK, what I'm saying is that if nobody has been informed, there is, effectively, no policy.
A local commander, when faced with such a situation, is not obligated to seek guidance from the GC's office. He/she is completely free to use their own judgement, as they have no way of knowing that there is a policy to the contrary. Some may go one way, some may go another. Since NHQ has done nothing to guide the judgement of the commanders (a secret squirrel policy does not provide guidance to those not part of the secret squirrel club), they have no place whatsoever to object to a local commander violating this "policy". As NHQ has no right to object to people violating their "policy", it is not a policy, but an aspirational policy, something that may someday become a policy, but at the moment, serves no purpose.
One e-mail to commanders and this is fixed. This is not something that takes months of directed work to communicate. Here, I'll even draft it for ya:
QuoteMEMORANDUM
FR: CAP/CC
TO: All Commanders
SUBJ: TRANSGENDER MEMBERS
1. It is the policy of CAP that in all circumstances, the legal gender of the member will be recognized for all CAP purposes.
2. Legal gender may be established by the member by means of a birth certificate indicating gender, a court order modifying such gender as the result of legal proceedings, or state or federally issued identification issued to the member by lawful authority
3. CAP NHQ is currently conducting a comprehensive review of this issue at this time, however, until such time as further guidance is issued, the provisions of this memorandum shall constitute the official policy of CAP
Signed
//Maj Gen//
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on February 08, 2016, 10:09:38 PM
"Treat them like the state treats them" works when we're just talking about regular meetings and activities, but I have some concerns for overnight activities.
I can only agree that meeting nights and ordinary unit activities present far less of an issue. And that is where we have about 90-95% or our contact time with cadets - at the local unit level.
Quote
My understanding of this situation is that we do not want to cause negative psychological consequences on a young person who is already dealing with the stresses of growing up, plus the stress of dealing with their own gender identity. I get that, and even support it to some extent. However, when we extend this policy to overnight cadet activities, we now marginalize the potential concerns and "uncomfortableness" of the majority of cadets who do identify with their biological gender, in favor of preventing "unfomfortableness" on the part of the minority that do not. And that is not cool in my book either - we should not be inflicting potential harm on one group of youths in order to prevent potential harm to another. I think billeting separately is a somewhat fair compromise, but not every activity will have that option available. Then what do we do?
I don't think it is helpful to analyze or try to create workable rules based primarily on the subjective comfort level of the participants of a rather diverse group of members. I honestly don't think we could ever really get something that works because folks honestly have greatly different levels of "comfort" in these situations.
(We are not that long past the times when some folks were not comfortable as sleeping in the same room with others from a different race or ethnicity.)
Society sets a few expectations, and CAP sets a few more. Males do not generally billet with females, seniors do not normally billet with unrelated cadets. Beyond those basic divisions, I'm not sure it is helpful to add more categories.
Interestingly, my subjective experience is that the cadets interacting with cadets is the least of our worries. I think we need to work harder to meet the questions and concerns of the parents and other stakeholders are we continue to review the policy.
It seems like there may be a lot of opinions in this thread that may be driven by a lack of understanding or misinformation.
As a former cadet (and hopefully future Senior Member - working on that soon!) who is transgender, if you have any respectful questions regarding transgender topics (as they relate to CAP or otherwise), I'll be happy to provide some insight from my subjective point of view.
I don't think the problem is so much misinformation or lack of understanding, but the fact that there are various understandings, stances, opinions, views, and disagreements regarding this topic within the medical, legal, political, and religious communities, which makes it harder for society as whole to have a unified understanding of the issues at hand.
Before this topic gets as heated as it did that last time it was brought up, please remember, RESPECT.
I will continue to support any LGBT Cadet or Senior Member. I judge by actions, not by anything else.
The National Vice Commander stated at the 2015 NSC (and I'm paraphrasing) If you have a Transgender or sex change member Take them as they are.
Quote from: CAPDCCMOM on February 26, 2016, 07:11:10 PMBefore this topic gets as heated as it did that last time it was brought up, please remember, RESPECT.
I will continue to support any LGBT Cadet or Senior Member. I judge by actions, not by anything else.
I know that I am going off on a rabbit trail. It has already been stated in this thread that CAP has a transgender policy .... but just want to get something off my chest and on to the record :)
Putting on my asbestos suit....speaking as a Chaplain who is a member of the Civil Air Patrol. Indeed this can be a heated discussion...especially (as Storm Chaser reminded) in the medical, legal, political, and religious communities. Here is my personal take and one that I share with my chaplain colleagues.
1) CAP is not a religious organization -- never has been, never will be. It is a secular, pluralistic, volunteer organization.
2) CAP is not governed by the 10 Commandments. We have official regulations, pamphlets and manuals that govern the way the organization performs its business and fulfills it missions. We have a set of Core Values that all members are to embrace and embody: Integrity, Volunteer Service, Excellence, and Respect.
3) CAP Chaplains are expected to serve all members (and their families) within the organization while remaining faithful to the belief system and the policies of their respective endorsing agencies.
4) Should you not be able to treat another CAP member with Respect, then it would be advisable for you to find another volunteer organization to join. The following example may appear to be apples and oranges but the principle is the same: A chaplain made it known that he could not serve as the Squadron Chaplain because the newly appointed Squadron Commander was a member of a different faith group -- which the chaplain had problems with. Once it became known, Wing Commander, Wing Chaplain, Region Chaplain discussed the situation -- reviewed the statements made publicly -- verified the position of the chaplain -- sought the advice of the Chief of Chaplains -- then offered a simple solution to the chaplain: resign or be 2'b for violating CAPR 265-2. While denominational/faith groups may have policies that must not be violated by their clergy....there is no reason whatsoever to have an attitude of total disrespect for a fellow member.
5) While my endorsing body has specific guidelines/policies regarding LGBT issues which I must adhere to, there is no statement that allows for or encourages me to show disrespect. I am governed by the CAP Chaplain Code of Ethics to serve all members of the organization and to observe the Core Values. Which leads me back to the main path of this thread and the question raised:
6) As stated before in this thread, CAP has a transgender policy.
Quote from: MSG Mac on February 26, 2016, 10:29:34 PM
The National Vice Commander stated at the 2015 NSC (and I'm paraphrasing) If you have a Transgender or sex change member Take them as they are.
"As they are" makes sense to me, as opposed to "as they wish they were". That Commanders Guidance passes the common sense test for me.
Present ID - male/name Jeff - "Sorry, you'll need to take off the skirt and earrings, sir, but we would love to have your talents, and how would you like to serve as an AEO".
Update post operations and legal ID change - female/name Jennifer - "Say Jennifer, did you update your eServices profile yet, and how is the annual AE plan coming along"?
Makes sense, I'd say. Still would like a written policy to implement the Commanders Guidance.
V/R
Spam
As all Captalk topics eventually turn to the issue of uniforms, my understanding of USAF policy is that USAF reserves the sole right to issue policy regarding the wearing of the USAF-style uniform. CAP members have on certain ( painful) occasions, taken certain liberties in this regard, and it is incumbent upon CAP, and indeed not within their competence or authority, to decide upon issues of USAF Uniform wear outside those regulations and policies which have been enumerated.
Quote from: ALORD on February 26, 2016, 11:23:05 PM
As all Captalk topics eventually turn to the issue of uniforms, my understanding of USAF policy is that USAF reserves the sole right to issue policy regarding the wearing of the USAF-style uniform. CAP members have on certain ( painful) occasions, taken certain liberties in this regard, and it is incumbent upon CAP, and indeed not within their competence or authority, to decide upon issues of USAF Uniform wear outside those regulations and policies which have been enumerated.
Has anyone said otherwise WRT this topic?
CAPM 39-1 is clear about males wear male uniforms females wear female uniforms. CAP's policy is that Male/Female are determined by the state and we will respect the identification that they issue.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 26, 2016, 11:34:49 PM
Quote from: ALORD on February 26, 2016, 11:23:05 PM
As all Captalk topics eventually turn to the issue of uniforms, my understanding of USAF policy is that USAF reserves the sole right to issue policy regarding the wearing of the USAF-style uniform. CAP members have on certain ( painful) occasions, taken certain liberties in this regard, and it is incumbent upon CAP, and indeed not within their competence or authority, to decide upon issues of USAF Uniform wear outside those regulations and policies which have been enumerated.
Has anyone said otherwise WRT this topic?
CAPM 39-1 is clear about males wear male uniforms females wear female uniforms. CAP's policy is that Male/Female are determined by the state and we will respect the identification that they issue.
CAP has no authority to permit State policies to over-ride USAF regulations or policies permitting the wear of the Uniform. If you can demonstrate any single regulation from USAF that permits cross-dressing as it relates to the USAF-style uniform, you would have a valid point, but USAF does not recognize transvestitism or dysmorphic disorders as a valid excuse to wear the Uniform of the opposite gender.
We are not.
USAF regulations say men wear men's uniform and women wear women's uniform.
The USAF does not currently allow transgender people to join the USAF ergo....they do not have any regulation about what transgender people can wear.
And I am confidant that CAP and CAP-USAF are in constant communication about Transgender CAP members. So your concerns are not warranted. If you want to find reasons to stick it to NHQ.....this dog don't bark.
^ Nailed it.
... of course this would end up on the next page.
Quote from: raivo on February 27, 2016, 02:54:39 AM
^ Nailed it.
... of course this would end up on the next page.
It did. ::)
I agree that this topic needs to be discussed with respect and that we need to remember our core values when we're dealing with any member and their families. That said, to respect doesn't necessary mean to agree. We can have opposing views about a sensitive topic and still be respectful about it. The reason I bring this up is because I've seen the "disrespect" flag thrown many times when someone disagrees with a certain view or value. In CAP, of course, we have our own set of core values, regulations, and policies to govern our behavior as CAP members. Beyond that, we can have disagreeing views as long as we're respectful of others and their views.
Quote from: ALORD on February 27, 2016, 02:36:26 AM
CAP has no authority to permit State policies to over-ride USAF regulations or policies permitting the wear of the Uniform. If you can demonstrate any single regulation from USAF that permits cross-dressing as it relates to the USAF-style uniform, you would have a valid point, but USAF does not recognize transvestitism or dysmorphic disorders as a valid excuse to wear the Uniform of the opposite gender.
Here we go again....
I can't help but keep flashing back to the "Loretta" skit in the roman amphitheater in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", with John Cleese and Eric Idle debating his struggles to have babies and feeling oppressed that he couldn't. Cleese's tag line was classic... (OK, HUMOR, folks).
If someone keeps their dogmatic evangelism (religious, sexual or political) to themselves and follows the CPP and other national and USAF policies, I'm supportive of serving members of all backgrounds who give of their time to serve our three missions. I personally think that we don't have a mission to, nor should we be allowing, evangelization of beliefs and lifestyles - whether in religious terms or in sexual terms, deviant or mainstream hetero - as that's potentially quite divisive and not within the core mission set. I've seen active duty military commanders I respect who demanded that a lid be kept on ALL political and sexual comment - hetero/homo, democrat or republican, religions of all stripes - and observed the positive resulting climate. In a workplace that's paid or unpaid as with CAP, that seems the wisest course to me.
I suppose, then, that my opinion places me at odds with the chaplain corps which has a lock on the appointment and religious sponsorship of CDIs, without whom my cadets can't get CD credit to advance. I'm a Christian personally (a poor one I'll admit but there are no good ones by definition) but I cant understand why for example we cant appoint a character development officer who is a professing agnostic, yet could be eminently qualified to lead CD discussions. How will our corps react to a trans CDI applicant, then, I wonder.
V/R
Spam
PS, lest someone take offense at my use of the word "deviant" or "deviate", I mean that not as a targeted insult but in the sense of deviations from the norm (as Geddy Lee sang about, for you Rush fans - go listen to "Vital Signs" and its lyrics to get my usage).
Quote from: Spam on February 27, 2016, 07:23:02 PM
<snip>
I suppose, then, that my opinion places me at odds with the chaplain corps which has a lock on the appointment and religious sponsorship of CDIs, without whom my cadets can't get CD credit to advance. I'm a Christian personally (a poor one I'll admit but there are no good ones by definition) but I cant understand why for example we cant appoint a character development officer who is a professing agnostic, yet could be eminently qualified to lead CD discussions. How will our corps react to a trans CDI applicant, then, I wonder.
<snip>
Things have changed significantly in the appointments of CDIs since 2012. Please read the thread in the lobby: CAPP 225 Character Development Instructor Specialty Track. Specifically my post of Feb 23.
Havent yet but will do, sir. Gotta go pick up some O flight cadets now, but wilco. Thanks, Spam
Quote from: Chappie on February 27, 2016, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: Spam on February 27, 2016, 07:23:02 PM
<snip>
I suppose, then, that my opinion places me at odds with the chaplain corps which has a lock on the appointment and religious sponsorship of CDIs, without whom my cadets can't get CD credit to advance. I'm a Christian personally (a poor one I'll admit but there are no good ones by definition) but I cant understand why for example we cant appoint a character development officer who is a professing agnostic, yet could be eminently qualified to lead CD discussions. How will our corps react to a trans CDI applicant, then, I wonder.
<snip>
Things have changed significantly in the appointments of CDIs since 2012. Please read the thread in the lobby: CAPP 225 Character Development Instructor Specialty Track. Specifically my post of Feb 23.
Spam - saw your response to Chappie but I wanted to add my own encouragement - I've been part of thread that he suggests, and I fully endorse what Chappie is talking about. I think - know - you'll find it very helpful. Feel free to PM me to discuss further.
I have enormous respect for Ned, he is a great American and an exemplary Officer. However, I suggest it is unlikely that Ned ever said that CAP has an "Official Policy" specifically regarding the wear of the USAF uniform of the opposite gender. If it is not written down and published, it is not really an "Official" policy, is it? I suspect, like many prudent Lawyers, his language was carefully chosen and nuanced, as words tend to have pesky and defined meanings that non-lawyers do not always appreciate. I think it is far more likely that CAP has chosen, as "Official Policy" to follow the "Best Practices" of each State in regards to "Gender Identification". After all, USAF is unlikely to take your business away from you, personally name you in a lawsuit, arrest you, or generally make your life miserable for depriving an individual of their Right to wear the Uniform of their self-identified gender choice. A State like California is very likely to take much more draconian measures if they have, in their mind, an actionable complaint ( California LOVES complaints like this!) If the "Official Policy" is simply to "Follow State Law", I suggest that this is the "Official Policy" CAPNHQ had in mind. It is probably a prudent course of action, and not having to defend Court Actions will keep our dues down. That policy takes away the risk to individual members and CAP-Corporate, and places the burden back on USAF. If some Wing in good faith thought that obeying a State Law superseded the general policies and regulations of USAF, USAF will have to be the party that places its foot down. The most likely course of action it would seem, would be to bypass the question completely by eliminating the wear of the USAF-style Uniform by CAP members, making the question moot.
As to how we will continue to grow as an organization ( In membership numbers, not mission or other metrics) with an organization stripped of its privilege to wear the USAF-style Uniform, espousing a value system that is "politically correct", critically at variance with USAF regulations, and furthermore, cannot even bear to hear the word "Moral" in regards to the Cadet program, I leave to you to decide how attractive CAP will be to potential new cadets and their parents.
Seeing as how the USAF is well aware of what we are doing....what our working official policy is....and is in fact working on their own official policy....I once again think that we, CAP, do not have anything to worry about.
We are not doing anything behind the USAF's back, and we are not in danger of loosing our USAF style uniforms.
My best guess is that within the next decade there will be openly serving transgender people in all branches in the military. I think the USAF knows this too.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 28, 2016, 03:17:14 AM
Seeing as how the USAF is well aware of what we are doing....what our working official policy is....and is in fact working on their own official policy....I once again think that we, CAP, do not have anything to worry about.
We are not doing anything behind the USAF's back, and we are not in danger of loosing our USAF style uniforms.
My best guess is that within the next decade there will be openly serving transgender people in all branches in the military. I think the USAF knows this too.
I am delighted to hear that! Your evidence, impartiality, and reasoning are clearly beyond question. So we have nothing to worry about? Man, am I relieved!
Why thank you kind sir.
I am glad to have relieved you of any undue worry.
Quote from: ALORD on February 28, 2016, 03:05:24 AM
I have enormous respect for Ned, he is a great American and an exemplary Officer. However, I suggest it is unlikely that Ned ever said that CAP has an "Official Policy" specifically regarding the wear of the USAF uniform of the opposite gender. If it is not written down and published, it is not really an "Official" policy, is it? I suspect, like many prudent Lawyers, his language was carefully chosen and nuanced, as words tend to have pesky and defined meanings that non-lawyers do not always appreciate. I think it is far more likely that CAP has chosen, as "Official Policy" to follow the "Best Practices" of each State in regards to "Gender Identification". After all, USAF is unlikely to take your business away from you, personally name you in a lawsuit, arrest you, or generally make your life miserable for depriving an individual of their Right to wear the Uniform of their self-identified gender choice. A State like California is very likely to take much more draconian measures if they have, in their mind, an actionable complaint ( California LOVES complaints like this!) If the "Official Policy" is simply to "Follow State Law", I suggest that this is the "Official Policy" CAPNHQ had in mind. It is probably a prudent course of action, and not having to defend Court Actions will keep our dues down. That policy takes away the risk to individual members and CAP-Corporate, and places the burden back on USAF. If some Wing in good faith thought that obeying a State Law superseded the general policies and regulations of USAF, USAF will have to be the party that places its foot down. The most likely course of action it would seem, would be to bypass the question completely by eliminating the wear of the USAF-style Uniform by CAP members, making the question moot.
As to how we will continue to grow as an organization ( In membership numbers, not mission or other metrics) with an organization stripped of its privilege to wear the USAF-style Uniform, espousing a value system that is "politically correct", critically at variance with USAF regulations, and furthermore, cannot even bear to hear the word "Moral" in regards to the Cadet program, I leave to you to decide how attractive CAP will be to potential new cadets and their parents.
You're really grasping at straws here.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 28, 2016, 03:17:14 AMMy best guess is that within the next decade there will be openly serving transgender people in all branches in the military. I think the USAF knows this too.
Concur.
Not quite yet.
The groundwork has been put in place though.
Quote from: ALORD on February 04, 2016, 05:09:33 PM
...are the Military Academies accepting a transvestitive wearing of the uniform?
Quote from: Chappie on February 27, 2016, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: Spam on February 27, 2016, 07:23:02 PM
<snip>
I suppose, then, that my opinion places me at odds with the chaplain corps which has a lock on the appointment and religious sponsorship of CDIs, without whom my cadets can't get CD credit to advance. I'm a Christian personally (a poor one I'll admit but there are no good ones by definition) but I cant understand why for example we cant appoint a character development officer who is a professing agnostic, yet could be eminently qualified to lead CD discussions. How will our corps react to a trans CDI applicant, then, I wonder.
<snip>
Things have changed significantly in the appointments of CDIs since 2012. Please read the thread in the lobby: CAPP 225 Character Development Instructor Specialty Track. Specifically my post of Feb 23.
Read/downloaded and read/understood. Thanks very much - good news from my perspective.
V/R
Spam
Quote from: Spam on February 29, 2016, 05:47:49 AM
Quote from: Chappie on February 27, 2016, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: Spam on February 27, 2016, 07:23:02 PM
<snip>
I suppose, then, that my opinion places me at odds with the chaplain corps which has a lock on the appointment and religious sponsorship of CDIs, without whom my cadets can't get CD credit to advance. I'm a Christian personally (a poor one I'll admit but there are no good ones by definition) but I cant understand why for example we cant appoint a character development officer who is a professing agnostic, yet could be eminently qualified to lead CD discussions. How will our corps react to a trans CDI applicant, then, I wonder.
<snip>
Things have changed significantly in the appointments of CDIs since 2012. Please read the thread in the lobby: CAPP 225 Character Development Instructor Specialty Track. Specifically my post of Feb 23.
Read/downloaded and read/understood. Thanks very much - good news from my perspective.
V/R
Spam
Excellent. Glad to know that the info was useful.