Working to change TG Policy in the Canadian Military: Update

Hi all,

A few months ago I was given the opportunity to provide feedback to the policy writers currently working on a revision of the Canadian military TG policy. I did suffer a bit of a setback about a month ago which prompted a bit of a retreat. However, I took up a defensive position and have now managed to push the battle line a bit further forward. For those who do not know, the current policy allows for Canadian military members who are TS to transition while in uniform and continue serving afterwards . . . a very good thing :). This policy protects the rights of TS folks to live as the target gender (e.g., uniform change, appearance as target gender, bathroom choice) until the transition is complete.

However when I read the policy, I noted that it was not inclusive. In particular while it is referred to as the TG policy, it disenfranchises a large portion of the spectrum. Specifically, I as a TG person (not transitioning) have no guaranteed rights to gender expression/variation. So while I could show up to work "en femme" on days when civilian attire is authorized, if someone takes offence and complains then I could be ordered to not do so. I did enter a military establishment twice "en femme" but I was given a dispensation to do so in order to address the writing group. I have since been told that I cannot do so anymore as the current policy does not permit it :chained: :Angry3:.

So for the past few months I have provided comments on revisions which would make the policy inclusive for those who wish to express gender variance at work but are not transitioning. This includes changes to the "dress regulations" which would allow TG persons to express their gender variance in clothing choice when civilian clothing is authorized (and uniform choice should they choose) as well as the right to use the bathroom of the gender they are presenting. In the case of MtF TG persons, the right to grow their hair long as part of their gender expression. Men are not allowed to have long hair in the military with the exception of Aboriginal males who can wear their hair long in a single braid. The wearing of hair in a single braid was extended to all military women as well who up until then had to wear their hair up in a bun. My argument was if part of my identity is female, I should be able to grow my hair long (a precedence had been set with Aboriginal males) so long as I wear it in accordance with dress policy (single braid down the back). Other aspects dealt with wearing clear plastic keepers until the piercings have healed. Current dress regulations do not permit men to wear any keepers while in uniform so ear piercing is not possible due to the long heal time required unless you are planning to take five weeks of leave to heal. Overall my intent was to ensure that a TG policy is inclusive to all and not just one group.

Things went fine with the initial revisions and seemed to be acceptable with the exception of a few naysayers but I chalk that up to narrow minded people who can't see past tradition. For example many believe men in uniform must have short hair. When I asked why the only response I got was "because that is the way it has always been" . . . no reason why, just because . . . :facepalm:.

While revisions made it past first contact (policy group), they got stomped out at the second level of review. In particular they were seen as too much change (and controversy) for the benefit of a few people :beatup: . . . they were willing to continue with the TG policy as is but not an inclusive policy :wtf:. This prompted a response from me which indicated that I would be willing to submit a formal grievance and if necessary a Charter of Rights challenge as the revisions I was asking for were not something new, I just wanted them to include the whole TG spectrum :bringiton:. I submitted this response in late November and am glad to report that as of week ago, the revisions will go forward into a working group in January for review and discussion. I am not saying the battle is over and I suspect I will have to fight this one day at a time, but it is something I feel strongly about and will continue to the bitter end if required (or at least until I retire :)).

I will let you know what happens in the New Year . . . I remain skeptical but slightly optimistic.

Hugs

Isha

The Canadian military in general, and its TG members specifically, are fortunate to have you among them.

Even though your actions can be career limiting, you selflessly persevere in your quest for inclusiveness.

I applaud you.

Best wishes
MsVal

Hi Isha- great to see another pic of you- what a fabulous smile you have!

I find myself puzzled. If your plan to reinvent military traditions were to carry on unlimited, would you wish to see front line troops in designer camouflage and battle-heels, wearing mascara and clutching tactical accessories? Would you like grenades to be available in a choice of tasteful pastels and tanks to be upholstered by Hermes? Or would you accept that while back at the parade ground in Kentucky platoons of dyed-blonde privates doing the regimental can-can with matching bangles might be all very well, once the ground assault begins and the shrapnel is flying, short hair and no make up might be less inconvenient and more conducive to discipline?

I am not a pacifist by the way- I totally support military personnel, though I might not always agree with their masters' decisions.

Hi Nikki,

I am not 100 percent sure but I am assuming your comments were meant in jest? Regarding the picture you paint . . . that would be the stereotypical vision of what could occur if the military permitted gender variance . . . not surprisingly that is akin to what some people actually said when I discussed this with them. The missed point by them is that gender variance would have to adhere to the same dress regulations of the gender of choice. For MtF should you choose to wear civilian attire, it would have to be neat and professional (no micro minis, stiletto heels, no jeans). Regarding front line troops . . . well we have had women in combat roles since the 1980s and nobody has ever asked for designer fatigues (male or female) and many women keep their hair short because it is more convenient and the only make-up around comes in black, brown and green face paint :). My main reason is that I should be afforded the same choice as those who the policy is currently aimed at.

Short hair has nothing to do with discipline BTW. If that is the case then women would be required to have their hair short and not wear make-up . . . as it stands . . . no discipline issues with make-up or long hair. :battingeyelashes:

Hugs

Isha

Isha;

I wonder if the thinking on their stance is from the point of view...

Those transitioning have made a conscience and determinant decision and commitment where as those who are expressing their femme side but not transitioning as a "hobby" and subsequently does not belong in the work environment?

Just curious your read.

You're a pillar of leadership on this topic.

Cheers... Jennifer

Short hair and no beards for the military came into play during WW I with the advent of wide spread chemical warfare. . Protective masks fit better with no facial hair and head hair short.

Because this was about 100 years ago some seem to think it has always been that way

Hugs Annette USN (ret)

I would like to point out that, prior to the 20th century, long hair, mustaches and beards were commonplace in the military. That's a bit tangential to Isha's main point, but still it goes to the tradition argument. Change comes slowly, but occasionally the military implements needed social change ahead of society as a whole...such as in rights of AFRICAN Americans in the US, and women and gays in other western nations.

Isha,
You have no choice to stick at it now, it's funny how the good military training they gave you is pushing you to take them on !
I guess you're going to keep hitting the brick wall of, " That's how it's always been !" As if change can never happen ! At the end of the day I suspect you have compromises you might have to accept but at least the policies are been talked through and they know changes are happening and will continue to do so.
I guess their unfounded fear is they will end up with a watered down service, but when the chips are down we would all fight for causes we believe in !
If I was asked to take up arms to defend my country my Cding wouldn't be a barrier to do my duty !

One question Isha, are you the sole voice in these negotiations ?

hi Isha,
honored to see you push for what you believe is right, basic common scene should win in the end, as stated nothing should change discipline and may even advance it as its makes it all inclusive when everyone's views and rights are considered.

im sure that this quest youve started will be long and arduous but worth your effort, you are well articulated and calculating, you were trained well !! that alone will be the downfall of the nay-Sayers you will encounter.

so are you the soul voice or do others have your 6.....will they sign on when needed....any vets who already served and proved themselves ?

Isha
I find it a great injustice that policies are not inclusive. I identify as female gender but like you am fine with my sex. I prefer to present female. It has been brought to my attention that the most recent deffinition of transgender by WPATH is also non inclusive of those of us that identify female (to what ever extent we feel comfortable with) but do not Feel the need to alter our body. I have not read the deffinition myselfe yet but our outreach person for our Tri-Ess group has been very involved with it. She attended some educational talks given by a transman and the talk centered around the WPATH deffinition. It is disheartening that a large portion of the people in the TG septrum are being left out when TG rights are being discussed. We have such a disconnect in our community when it comes to describing ourselves that we may never be able to stand together and be heard.

I truly admire you for taking a stand. Just be aware that the current accepted definition of transgender by WPATH may be working agains you.

I apologize for not providing a link but I am a bit under the weather today.

Kelley

Isha, I hope that your logical arguments will carry the day, I think you have done an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies in the present policies. I know that you may not succeed in all of your goals, but Rome was not built in a day and sometimes one has to be content to move public policies forward an inch (millimeter?) at a time. Hang in there, thanks for the update, I've wondered how that was going.

Hugs, Bria

Isha,

First thing thank you for championing a difficult cause, there is a lot of inertia with large organizations and change is difficult. The progress you made so far is near unbelievable, when I think back to my short time with the military 20 years ago and the attitudes of the time. Ultimately you are asking for a change that will apply to a tiny segment of the military, but change is something that will meet resistance when you are forcing people and organizations to look at their ethos and reasons behind traditions and reconsider them.

I think that one of the most important things you are doing is putting an actual face to the debate, it is much harder to dismiss an idea that is associated to a real person. From reading your posts I believe you are articulate, realistic and seem to have more common sense than most. It would be far easier to dismiss any such requests coming from a younger less experienced person. I seem to recall you writing that you were over 20 years service, this only add weight to your request. Being able to point to a history of jobs well done and saying something to the tune of "These changes can help us attract and retain more people who do all this, just like me" is like a picture and worth a thousand words.

These changes are happening in the rest of society and the military would do well to keep up or even be a leader in equality. You don't mention it but I suspect that there must be some sort of criteria under debate to qualify for these changes, I can see value in the idea of having a person speak to a therapist before acting upon these changes if only to ensure they understand what they are about to do.

I am curious how the slow moving bill C-279, (which adds transgendered people to list of those protected from discrimination) will affect your fight?

Whatever the results your work is very much worth it and thank you for taking it on.

Kelly

Sorry Isha- shouldn't have been so flippant. I support 100% what you're doing. You have more guts than me in your little finger.

xxNikki

Nikki - a bit of jest is fine... I just wouldn't present too much of a clear silhouette at your windows for the next few days... :devil:

Interesting update Isha... thanks for keeping us posted on the internal wranglings of the Canadian military. Couple of things I have found interesting in this. First:

Quote:

---

I did enter a military establishment twice "en femme" but I was given a dispensation to do so in order to address the writing group. I have since been told that I cannot do so anymore as the current policy does not permit it

---

You may remember I had pondered on this one at the time as, having worked a lot with military and security services, I know how rightly paranoid they can be about establishing identity and did wonder about the difficulty with having someone present so differently from one day to the next and how that might be handled - perhaps that's the answer, or perhaps that's just a touch of "Let the girl-guy wear a wig and makeup to a couple of meetings and it will all go away..." I don't know, but you mooted that you had a hit a fairly high-ranking obstacle recently and I do know that while all western military corps are apolitical from a country state perspective, their own brand of military politics within is the way most things get done - all organisations are like this... And I think you're doing a great job to combat that with clear, simple logic and by highlighting the contradictions. One of which, I think, is this:

Quote:

---

Men are not allowed to have long hair in the military with the exception of Aboriginal males who can wear their hair long in a single braid.

---

I can understand this, but I cannot see how they can refuse to allow this policy to be accessed by non-aboriginal males without it being some form of discrimination? This is placing one citizen soldier above another and must surely be discriminatory? I'm sure there are many descendants of Scottish settlers in Canada who can hearken back to having rather wild, Highland locks... would that not be a suitable reason for claiming non-aboriginal 'right' to have long hair? Or perhaps you should just become a Sikh? :) Or perhaps find some obscure but accessible sect for which long hair is mandatory..? Seems contradictory... and discriminatory... :thinking:

I really do wish you well with your ongoing intellectual battles... and look forward to reports from the front of the next successful engagement! Huzzah!! :cheer:

Katey x

Well done isha

Isha, it is great to read you have been able to keep this moving forward. Changes to established systems are difficult but happen all the time. It takes people like yourself who are able to make reasonable arguments but are not willing to easily give up. At best, these policy revisions will continue to move forward, but if not, you've moved this issue much closer to the tipping point of being accepted in the near future.

Isha,
I think you are doing something wonderful, even if it has been rejected on some levels; you have opened a door and shined a light on something that needs to be seen and dealt with logically. I believe you have a good chance of pushing this (or at least most of it) through. Your efforts inspired me to write this:

"If equality is not for the least of us, then it cannot exist for the rest of us."

With best wishes for success,
Donna

This is amazing and what a progressive motion. There is always set backs when things like this are brought up but at least they are moving along in somewhat of a forward direction. Maybe not as fast as we'd like to see happen but wow what a good story. If this goes through it will make better soldiers for the military

Isha,

You're on another level from almost all of us. I can't imagine. I certainly support your position, but I have to wonder where that boundaries are, if they exist at all.

What about the communal living arrangements in the military? I'm not being flippant, but genuinely curious. Bra and panties in the barracks? I've never been in the military, so I don't even know if there's government issues underwear. That just one of the things about the communal living arrangements that I think might be problematic in real life.

On the long hair issue, that is one of the most persistent and ludicrous gender related issues across all areas of society. Totally non-nonsensical, yet upheld as gospel. Pisses me off.

Good luck. Quite a journey you've begun.

Isha, as a former member of the U.S. military, I commend you and the path you're forging. As far as the hair goes, I was always on report for pushing the acceptable length. The only times I willingly had it cut was during deploymen, (easier to care for). Good luck in your quest!

Hi all,

Thanks very much for your comments and support. I suspect this will be a long process and I will have shuffled off the military uniform long before anything is actually in writing. However, I just wanted to ensure it was on the books and considered since the policy is named TG Policy :battingeyelashes:. I suspect there will be compromises down the road (the bathroom issue comes to mind) but so long as an equitable an fair accord can be reached, I will be happy. I am also cognizant that I am fighting a fight for a very small minority. Specifically, the military is representative of society so I am sure there are TG/CD folks in uniform and the plausibility (even if policy changes are effected) of them rising up and dressing as the opposite gender at work is infinitesimal because they probably wish to remain secret for other reasons. But I am not fighting this for a minority, I fight it because it is wrong and if the changes are not effected and someone (say a closeted TG/CD) is discovered by the chain of command and there is no policy which says "live and let live" then indirect discrimination is plausible. The policy (even if the person chooses not to avail themselves of it) will identify that TG (whole spectrum) is recognized by the military and the chain of command cannot discriminate against being TG regardless of how you present. That is my true goal. Will I ever dress at work? I have done so twice for a specific purpose but I can't say with any certainty I would do it on a continual basis. However, it would be nice to have the right to do so should I choose and that is what it is about in the end . . . "choice". :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennifer-GWN

Isha;

I wonder if the thinking on their stance is from the point of view... Those transitioning have made a conscience and determinant decision and commitment where as those who are expressing their femme side but not transitioning as a "hobby" and subsequently does not belong in the work environment?

---

Hi Jennifer,

Funny you should ask this as I had that same question but not from the policy holders but from my own chain of command. Specifically, I was asked, since you don't identify as female, can't you just turn this off during work and "dress-up at home". Now I will qualify she (my boss) was not being flippant but intellectually curious. I explained that while there are some for which dressing is a private thing designed for a specific purpose (e.g., feeling good, sexual) after which they go on with their lives (not saying it is a hobby for those who may wish to launch here) . . . more precisely their private and public lives don't mix. However, in my case it is innate and it is not something I can "turn off" at a whim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teresa

... One question Isha, are you the sole voice in these negotiations ?

---

Hi Teresa,

When it comes to TG (non-transitioning) . . . yes I am the sole voice as I am not aware of any other serving members who have come out completely at work who are not transitioning. I believe there a couple of TG/TS members providing advice on that part of the policy but I have not met them as of yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kelley

... Just be aware that the current accepted definition of transgender by WPATH may be working agains you.

---

Hi Kelley,

Thanks and I found the link (hope you are feeling better). Yes the old definition comes up quite a bit. Luckily I have several Provincial definitions of "gender identity" to fall back on which are inclusive. We (the military) tend to look at Federal policy and if none exist then down to provincial level. There was a Bill (C-279) moving through the Federal Government which would have enshrined TG rights (including a all inclusive definition) but it was stomped out a the second senate reading. So I pointed out that several provinces define TG in an inclusive manner and that is what we are currently working with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdraper45

. . . I am curious how the slow moving bill C-279, (which adds transgendered people to list of those protected from discrimination) will affect your fight?

---

Hi Kelly,

It comes up from time to time but it is not a huge bone of contention as that is more related to the "legality of TG rights" and I am pushing for policy change (administrative in nature). Still, it does get tossed around every now and then especially since it was inadvertently dubbed the "bathroom bill" by some narrow minded Conservatives who were trying to frighten people into believing that TG rights mean men will be attacking women and girls in the bathroom . . . seemed to work though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nikkilovesdresses

Sorry Isha- shouldn't have been so flippant

---

Hi Nikki,

I didn't take it as anything but you jesting a bit. I only responded to your comments to point out that those are exactly the beliefs I am tackling . . . we are all good :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhonda Jean

... What about the communal living arrangements in the military?

---

Hi Ronda Jean,

I suppose this could be problematic especially in a "basic training scenario" where it is dormitory style living and shared bathrooms. However, I will point out that a lot of universities have co-ed dorms in which men and women share the same bathroom. My niece used to tell me that it was not uncommon to be having a shower (closed stall with curtain) and have a guy in the shower stall beside you. However, most service people tend to move out to their own apartments once the training phase is over. Should they decide to live on base then the rooms tend to be sole occupancy with a shared bathroom (for two people) which locks so it would not be an issue. I think at the end of the day, it is all about education and tolerance.


Hugs all,

Isha

Isha,

I'm absolutely fascinated. So often, regardless of the change sought, it's done in small increments. One thing at a time. You're not fooling around with increments. You are incredibly brave and committed! I can't even comprehend. Incredible. It'll be fascinating to see how this plays out.

I doubt that this will result in wholesale change in the short term. What could happen is that a platform for discussion is established. I can see them sticking their toe in the water with small concessions. "A journey of a thousand miles", you know.

They certainly won't change things if the only outcome is to accommodate you. Seems like they'd have to see it as accommodating a larger population, and really as something that would improve recruiting and/or retention.

This is such a huge undertaking. If you are able to change anything at all, you should consider it a huge victory. Many of the regulations you seek to change have no basis in logic, only in prejudice and hatred. Prejudice and hatred will always be there, regardless of legislation.

Congratulations on progress. Even if its not as much as you might like, it's amazing to me how far you've gotten.

Well, as always Isha, proud of all you do to represent! As is often said, you have to pick your battles and this is a good one! It looks like progress is being made, but as you know, in that environment, things do not always move at the pace we would like. At times, it may seem like one step forward and two steps back, but with the steps forward, a trail is blazed making it easier to move forward again. Hoping that your are able to keep going!!

Erin

Isha,

You really amaze me... I'm sure you are aware that I would not be 'where I am' with this whole CD-ing thing, would not have done a fraction of the things I have done if you had not already 'blazed the trail ahead'. I think I have an understanding, albeit limited, of how this may be impacting on you, I'm sure you suffer similar struggles to me but obviously handle them infinitely better that I do... You seem to have an acceptance and now an advocacy of this that is providing some positive drive.

My question is that do you now think you may have bitten off a little more that you can chew??? As has been raised in a previous post, your actions are probably (and wrongly) career limiting (and I know that those in power can affect their aims in a manner that leaves them insulated from any accusations!) Whilst I would wholeheartedly follow your lead in shaping and influencing management acceptance, softening the conservative attitudes and, hopefully, doing what I can to create an non-judgemental work environment, I would be incredibly reticent to present at work ‘en femme’. I’m not so sure that the positives outweigh the negatives… OK with full 20/20 hindsight, have you not armed the dissenters with a powerful ‘attack the arguer not the argument?’ I can only think how my old school, grumpy and set in his ways one-star boss would act and react if he ever met Donna….

I do hope everything works out. I so look forward to seeing how this all ends. I’m sure you can feel the support emanating from all of us here in internet land…

You are the master; I am but your lowly padawan…

Biggest Huggs,

Donna

Hi Donna,

As far as my career goes . . . well, let's say I have burned a few bridges (non-TG related) so I think my current rank of Major is as far as I am going. I like to coin a phrase 20/30 plan . . . 20 seconds to pi@@ me off and 30 days to get out. So after 33 years, I like to exercise a little latitude.

Hugs

Isha

Ms. Isha. Trust me, there is nothing wrong with being a Major. You have me beat on time (27 yrs. for me), but I followed a course pretty much like yours for my career as well, (except for the TG part). I was always well known as being a bit outspoken, but one who always spoke the truth and was never afraid to call a spade a spade when I saw it, sometimes to my more politically correct and careerist boss's dislike. Plus, being such a deep in the woods technical subject matter expert and one who had an very atypical career as an officer to start with, my chances for ever getting promoted beyond Major were very limited at best. I just retired last month and am overall very pleased with my career and the service I gave my country.,.....and you should be too. Best of luck with all you are trying to do. I am sure the Canadian Forces will be better for it.

Isha good for you, there will be a lot benefit from this, hugs