without detection, despite being wounded twice, and was only revealed to be a woman when hospitalized during an epidemic and falling unconscious. She received an honorable discharge and received a military pension from the Com-monwealth of Massachusetts (Diamant 1998, 35–38; Michals 2015a). Though documented cases during the Revolutionary War are rare, the historical consensus is that the number of disguised women soldiers during the Civil War ran well into the hundreds. One of the most famous examples is Jennie Irene Hodgers, a.k.a.
Private Albert Cashier. Hodgers emigrated to the United States from Ireland, and first assumed the identity of a man to gain employment at a shoe factory. After the Civil War broke out, Hodgers became Albert Cashier and volunteered for the 95th Infantry, Illinois in August 1862. Cashier took part in 40 engagements, including the critical Siege of Vicksburg, and served a full three-year tour of duty. Cashier is sometimes called the first transgender soldier because he continued to live as a man after the war (O’Dowd 2019). Only late in life was his secret revealed when hospi-talized for dementia. Nonetheless, he was buried in uniform with full military hon-ors, and his tombstone lists his name as Albert D. J. Cashier (O’Dowd 2018, 2019).
The extensive physical examinations required for recruits starting in World War I made it all but impossible for women to disguise themselves to become combat soldiers in the United States military.5 During the war, there are accounts of a handful of women in European countries who joined the military disguised as men. Russia officially formed combat units called Women’s Battalions made up entirely of women in 1917 (Stoff 2006).
In the U.S. military, women participated in World War I primarily as nurses and switchboard operators. Female switchboard operators were part of the U.S. Army’s Signal Corps and had to be bilingual in English and French. Though they wore U.S. Army uniforms and were subject to Army regulations, after the War they were not given honorable discharges or veteran benefits, as they were defined, after the fact, as “civilians” employed by the military due to the fact that Army Regula-tions specified the male sex—an injustice not rectified until 1977 under the Carter administration (Hanes 2007).
During World War II, the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) was formed and reached a peak strength of 100,000 women (Treadwell 1954). The creation of WAC altered who was eligible for military service, though in a manner strictly segregated by sex and that forbid women from combat roles. Thus the regulatory definition that “Only biological males (X) count as potential soldiers (Y) in the U.S military (C)” was in effect complemented by the rule “Only biological females (X) count as potential servicepeople (Y) in the WACs (C).” The range of noncombat roles women fulfilled is described in a booklet in 1944 as follows:
As the tempo of war accelerated, WACs arrived overseas aboard liners and cargo boats in ever increasing numbers. They were assigned to ETOUSA [European Theater of Operations of the USA] headquarters, to the Air Forces, to services mushrooming from SOS, Ordinance, Quartermaster, Transportation, Medical, Chemical Warfare, Engineers. They plotted aircraft
The military 89
and V-1s, teleprinted, operated switchboards, typed, filed, made maps—
from air-sea rescue rooms they “brought home” lost planes and pilots. They assessed combat films, cooked, gave inoculations, drove jeeps and trucks, and sweated out missions from control towers. These were only a few of the 239 jobs for which WACs were trained.
(Wilson 1944) WAC was disbanded in 1978 when women were integrated into the U.S. Army.
By that time, there were noncombat roles for women in all branches of the U.S.
military, and the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Naval Academies all admit-ted women. It was not until January 2013, however, that the traditional ban on women serving in combat roles was finally lifted by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Implementation is occurring slowly and not without controversy. None-theless, from a definitional standpoint, being assigned to the male sex is no longer a requirement for any military occupation, combat or noncombat. In 2017, women represented 16% of the overall active duty force, and 18% of all commissioned officers (Barroso 2019).
Historically, the U.S. military has not only been a bastion of masculinity, but heterosexuality as well.6 For most of U.S. history, homosexual acts were forbidden by civil anti-sodomy laws and thus were grounds for dishonorable discharge. By World War II, the U.S. Army classified homosexual “proclivities” as disqualifying inductees from military service, both for men in the Army and women in WAC (Bérubé 1990). For women, screening of recruits included judgments about physi-cal appearance and gender conformity in order to attempt to identify and exclude lesbians (Meyer 1996). By 1949, the Defense Department codified anti-homosexual regulations across all branches of the military: “Homosexual personnel, irrespective of sex, should not be permitted to serve in any branch of the Armed Forces in any capacity, and prompt separation of known homosexuals from the Armed Forces is mandatory” (quoted in Bérubé 1990, 261). In 1982, the Defense Department policy memorandum 1332.14 stated flatly: “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the mili-tary mission” (GAO 1992, 2).
Thus, even while the biological attribute of “sex” slowly lost relevance as a required definitional attribute for military service, heterosexuality has been main-tained, though it has been defined by negation. That is, to be eligible for military service, one must not be non-heterosexual, i.e., homosexual.
Between 1994 and 2011, the Defense Department implemented what became known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy toward homosexuality. A Defense Department Directive issued December 21, 1993 declared that, “A person’s sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct” (section E1.2.8.1). In other words, as long as servicemen and women kept their sex life
private, in theory they could continue to serve. The policy took effect on Febru-ary 28, 1994, and lasted until its repeal in 2011. The policy was controversial, as gay rights activists emphasized that the policy was still discriminatory and was used as a tool of harassment by anti-gay soldiers and officers, and conservatives still insist-ing that homosexuality is inconsistent with military service. It is estimated by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network that more than 14,500 service personnel were discharged while “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was in effect (McVeigh & Harris 2011). A University of California Blue Ribbon Commission Report estimated that the cost of implementing the policy between 1994–2003 was over $300 million (Barrett et al. 2006).
In 2010, Congress passed legislation initiating a process of ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Despite Republican efforts to delay the end of the policy, the statute’s required certification that ending the policy would not harm mili-tary effectiveness progressed, and the policy officially ended September 20, 2011.
A study that began six months after the policy’s end and completed at the one-year mark, and conducted by an impressive list of academic and military scholars, states:
Our conclusion, based on all of the evidence available to us, is that DADT repeal has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its compo-nent dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harass-ment, or morale. If anything, DADT repeal appears to have enhanced the military’s ability to pursue its mission.
(Belkin et al. 2012, 588) Gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals who wished to serve in the U.S. military are now legally able to do so.
Not so for transgender people.
Though there was not an explicit policy using the term “transgender” until relatively recently, transgender military personnel would be excluded either for violating proscriptions against homosexuality or because “transvestitism,” “trans-sexualism,” and “gender identity disorder,” were considered mental afflictions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders included “Transvestitism” as a sexual deviation in the 1968 edition (DSM-II), and listed “Transsexualism” and
“Gender identity disorder” in 1980 (DSM-III). In 1984, a team of psychiatrist mili-tary officers reported on six case studies of requests for sex reassignment surgery, noting that, “To the military, transsexualism is a disqualifying medical condition in which separation is to be handled through administrative channels, just as are homosexuals and those with significant personality disorders” (Jones, Deeken, &
Eshelman 1984). As recently as 2010, a Defense Department memo on “Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services” pre-cluded those with a “Current or history of psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias” (Defense Department 2010, 48).7
The military 91
The fact that transgender military service is officially prohibited has not stopped transgender individuals from serving, albeit covertly. Information about transgen-der participants in the U.S. military has emerged slowly and in a piecemeal fash-ion. A study was published by a military psychiatrist, Captain George R. Brown (USAF), in 1988 concerning 11 “male gender-dysphoric patients meeting DSM-III criteria for transsexualism” who were seen by the doctor over a three-year period (Brown 1988). All were requesting hormone treatment and/or sex reas-signment surgery, after spending years trying to escape their gender dysphoria by plunging into what the psychiatrist called “hypermasculinity” in the military. One patient said, “I tried to do things to make me feel more masculine, like joining the Navy and getting married.” Another said, “I joined the Air Force as a cover. In uniform, my masculinity would not be questioned—I was above reproach” (Brown 1988, 529). Brown reports that most of those treated were discharged from military service prematurely, many within their first year of duty (1988, 533; see also Jones, Deeken, & Eshelman 1984). Interestingly, an opinion issued by the Judge Advocate General’s Air Force office, quoted by Brown, suggested that a policy of excluding
“transsexuals” would be hard to defend:
The short of the matter seems to be that if we propose to base the policy of discharging members who undergo sex change operations on promotion of good order, discipline, morale, or other similar virtues, we must prepare for a challenge on the ground that there is no empirical evidence that transsexuals have an adverse impact on those values.
(OpJAGAF 1984) The military experience of transgender veterans has been documented in auto-biographies, including that by Roberta Cowell, a British racing driver and fighter pilot in World War II, who was the first known British transgender woman to undergo sex reassignment surgery (Cowell 1954); Christine Jorgensen, who was drafted into the U.S. Army during World War II (Jorgensen 1967); Jan Morris, a Welsh historian and author who also served in World War II (Morris 1974); and Renée Richards, the famed tennis player who served in the U.S. Navy (Richards 1983).
A recent and visible U.S. example is Kristin Beck. Beck served as a Navy SEAL for 20 years, reaching the rank of Senior Chief Petty Officer. She served in 13 deployments, including seven combat deployments, and at one point was a mem-ber of the counter-terrorism unit known as SEAL Team Six. She received multiple awards and decorations, including a Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Throughout her military career, she wanted to live life as a woman. Beck transitioned after retiring, and co-authored a book about her life titled Warrior Princess: A U.S. Navy SEAL’s Journey to Coming out Transgender (Beck & Speckhard 2013).
The previous examples all concern transgender soldiers who transitioned after leaving military service. This is not surprising given that the military has precluded
transgender service members until quite recently. A notable exception is Caroline Paige’s autobiography, which shares the story of her becoming the first openly transgender officer to serve in the UK Armed Forces (2017).
A Whitepaper prepared for the Palm Center and the Transgender Ameri-can Veterans Association reports the results of a survey completed by over 800 transgender veterans and active service personnel. Of the 660 participants who identified as “transsexual,” 97% reported they were unable to transition before leaving the military (Bryant & Schilt 2008, 1). Though the paper cautions that the results relied on a convenience sample rather than a random sample, and thus cannot claim to be representative of all transgender service members, the data provided an important first step toward understanding the experiences of transgender soldiers, and the accounts are consistent with the anecdotal research reported by Jones, Deeken, and Eshelman (1984), Brown (1988), and published autobiographies.
Historical data on how many transgender people are in the military are hard to find, though multiple sources estimate that there is a higher proportion of transgender people in the military than in the general U.S. population (Yerke &
Mitchell 2013). Informed by the Defense Department’s first-ever effort to col-lect data on gender identity in 2016, it was estimated “that the number of cur-rently serving transgender troops is 14,707, of whom 8,980 are in the Active Component, and 5,727 are in the Selected Reserve” (Belkin & Mazur 2018).
These figures are similar to those estimated by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law in 2014 that “approximately 15,500 transgender indi-viduals are serving on active duty or in the Guard or Reserve forces. We also estimate that there are an estimated 134,300 transgender individuals who are veterans or are retired from Guard or Reserve service” (Gates & Herman 2014, 1). A survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that among current service members, slightly over half (52%) thought no one thought or knew they were transgender. Among those who believed their lead-ership thought or knew they were transgender, approximately one-quarter (23%) believed their leadership or commanding officer had taken actions to discharge them. On the other hand,
Many reported that their leadership or commanding officer responded to their transgender status in a variety of positive ways, including supporting their name change (47%) and supporting their transition-related medical treatment (36%). Thirty percent (30%) reported that their leadership or com-manding officer ignored their transgender status or looked the other way.
(James et al. 2016, 169) Respondents who separated from military service more than 10 years before the survey was taken in 2015 were asked about the circumstances of their discharge:
“19% believed their discharge was either partially related (14%) or completely
The military 93
related (5%) to being transgender” (170). It is also clear that the U.S. military’s anti-transgender policy resulted in a loss of personnel:
Nearly one in ten (9%) respondents who separated from military service more than ten years ago left the service in order to transition, and an addi-tional 19% said they left the service to avoid being mistreated or harassed as a transgender person.
(171) If the ban was lifted, nearly two-thirds said they “would” or “might” return to military service (173).
The Obama and Trump administrations and transgender military service
The end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy involving lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals was brought about by substantial pressure upon the Obama administration by LGBT advocates (Frank 2013). The next step taken by the administration was to reconsider the prohibition on transgender people in the military. In May 2014, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that the military should “continually” review its prohibition on transgender people serving in the armed forces, declaring, “Every qualified American who wants to serve our country should have an opportunity if they fit the qualifications and can do it” (Cooper 2014). Ashton B. Carter, who succeeded Hagel as Defense Secretary, announced a little more than a year later that the Pentagon would move to allow transgender people to serve openly. He noted that “We have transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines—real, patriotic Americans—who I know are being hurt by an outdated, confusing, inconsistent approach that’s contrary to our value of service and individual merit” (Bromwich 2017). In October 2015, Vice President Joseph Biden repeated a claim he had made several years before that transgender rights were “the civil rights issue of our time” and argued that transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military (Bromwich 2017).
A study by the Rand Corporation commissioned by the Defense Department was released in May 2016 and found that allowing transgender people to serve openly would cost little and have no significant impact on unit readiness (Schaefer et al. 2016). Acknowledging that the data are far from clear, the report estimated the number of transgender active and reserve service members is about 3,960, though not all would seek to transition medically even if the opportunity was made available (16).8 Based on those numbers, the estimated cost of additional health care would be in the range of $2.9 to 4.2 million (35). The report also examined the impact of allowing transgender people to serve in the military in Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, and found “In no case was there any evidence of an effect on the operational effectiveness, operational readiness, or cohesion of the force” (xiii).
In June 2016, Secretary Carter announced an end to the ban on transgen-der people serving. As quoted in the New York Times, “Effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly,” Mr. Carter said. “They can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender”
(Rosenberg 2016). The announcement was transmitted to the military through what is known as a Directive-type Memorandum (16–005), titled “Military Service of Transgender Service Members” and stated explicitly that “transgender individu-als shall be allowed to serve in the military,” and noted that the policy takes effect immediately (Secretary of Defense 2016). The memorandum states it will expire effective June 30, 2017, and that it will be converted to a new DoDI (Department of Defense Instruction). The key changes in procedures were described as follows:
a Effective immediately, no otherwise qualified Service member may be invol-untarily separated, discharged or denied reenlistment or continuation of ser-vice, solely on the basis of their gender identity.
b Transgender Service members will be subject to the same standards as any other Service member of the same gender; they may be separated, discharged, or denied reenlistment or continuation of service under existing processes and basis, but not due solely to their gender identity or an expressed intent to transition genders.
c A Service member whose ability to serve is adversely affected by a medi-cal condition or medimedi-cal treatment related to their gender identity should be treated, for purposes of separation and retention, in a manner consistent with a Service member whose ability to serve is similarly affected for reasons unre-lated to gender identity or gender transition.
(Secretary of Defense 2016) The new policy clearly stated that those currently serving in the military could not be discharged solely to transgender status. It also created a new definitional criterion for transgender “accession,” or entry, into the military. Medical stand-ards still stated that gender dysphoria or a history of medical treatment, including sex reassignment surgery, would be “disqualifying” unless the applicant had been stable in their gender for 18 months or more. The 18-month requirement could be waived, in whole or in part, “in individual cases for applicable reasons” (Secre-tary of Defense 2016). Specific Department of Defense “Instruction” detailing the policy was required to be in place by July 1, 2017.
From a definitional standpoint, the 18-month requirement is similar to the requirement of some single-sex colleges that required applicants either to have completed their transition or otherwise meet a “durational” definitive attribute:
Only transgender recruits stable in their gender identity (X) count as potential soldiers (Y) in the U.S military (C). The explanation provided by Secretary Carter was: “Medical standards for accession into the Military Services help to ensure that
Only transgender recruits stable in their gender identity (X) count as potential soldiers (Y) in the U.S military (C). The explanation provided by Secretary Carter was: “Medical standards for accession into the Military Services help to ensure that