How to handle TRANSGENDER Cadet: biology or choice?

[raivo]

^ Nailed it.

... of course this would end up on the next page.

[PHall]

^ Nailed it.

... of course this would end up on the next page.

It did.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[NIN]

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.... 

[Spam]

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).

[Chappie]

<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]

Havent yet but will do, sir. Gotta go pick up some O flight cadets now, but wilco. Thanks, Spam

[Brit_in_CAP]

<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.

[ALORD]

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.

[lordmonar]

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. 

[ALORD]

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!

[lordmonar]

Why thank you kind sir.

I am glad to have relieved you of any undue worry.

[raivo]

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.

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.

Concur.

[USACAP]

Not quite yet.
The groundwork has been put in place though.

...are the Military Academies accepting a transvestitive wearing of the uniform?

[Spam]

<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

[Chappie]

<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.