I knew I had an article recently written by Chelsea Manning. I don't know
when she wrote this because she doesn't have access to the internet and has
to get it to people outside the prison for publication. But the latest news
is that the Military refuses to allow her attorneys to have contact with her
or knowledge of her condition until, perhaps tomorrow, Friday.
Miriam
Manning writes: "Open trans service in the military is a necessary step
toward protecting and recognizing the humanity of trans people, but the
military's proposal falls far short of what is needed."
Chelsea Manning objects to the requirement of a doctor's stamp of approval
in a gender certification process. (photo: AP)
It's Right to End the Ban on Trans People in the Military - but Wrong to Set
Conditions
By Chelsea Manning, Guardian UK
05 July 16
The new policy says trans people should be 'stable in their gender ... as
certified by a doctor'. That's not good enough. We're the ones who know our
gender best
pen trans service in the military is a necessary step toward protecting and
recognizing the humanity of trans people, but the military's proposal falls
far short of what is needed.
When I first heard about Thursday's announcement I was grinding and sanding
metal to a polish at my prison job. The news was both a relief and reminder
of how little we can count on the principles of equality and institutions
like the military to bring justice to our community.
Even within the military inclusion framework, many issues remain unresolved
and concerning. Right away, something didn't sit right with me. We don't
need the military to be the gatekeeper of our gender expression and
identity. We should be able to define ourselves.
The policy outlined by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter would require new
recruits to be "stable in their identified gender for 18 months, as
certified by their doctor, before they can enter the military". How many
young trans people like myself fit this criteria? The idea of having a
gender certification process is a misuse of the medically accepted standards
of care. What is the stability of gender? Isn't gender an inherently
unstable concept - always being constrained by the various context and rules
under which we live?
I worry that this type of requirement will further entrench the gender
binary and further legitimize the control that administrators and medical
providers have over our bodies and our identities.
And what about those of us who are incarcerated? Will these rules apply to
us? I am deeply concerned that like so many policies, the impact of this
change won't penetrate the prison walls. What does it mean that the military
will recognize our gender, unless and until we are arrested, and then what?
This core identity is then stripped away and our birth assigned sex is
imposed on us?
But defining ourselves for who we are is one of the most powerful and
important rights that we have as human beings. No one knows my gender more
than I do. You do not know my gender better than I do. A doctor doesn't know
it better than I do. My parents don't know it better than I do. No one
experiences my gender in the way that I experience it. Presenting myself and
my gender is about my right to exist. With this policy, the military is
essentially saying "you can exist, but only on our terms". What they are
doing is taking away the control of our identity.
Gender presentation should reflect the person that you are. When you lose
control of your gender presentation you lose an important aspect of your
identity and existence. By setting so many caveats, time lines, standards,
and training, the military is making this far, far, more complicated and
bureaucratic than it needs to be. The simple reality is that we are who we
say we are.
When it comes to trans inclusion in the military, at this point, there are
still too many questions. We don't yet know whether this policy of
"inclusion" will be in name only and whether medical providers and
commanders will find ways to push us out, dehumanize us and cast us as
freaks.
Of course, this is not the first time the military has confronted its own
entrenched prejudice.
But if history is any guide - for instance the racial and gender
integrations of the 20th century - the US armed forces are more than capable
of overcoming such obstacles.
No matter how this shift in policy rolls out, I hope that we remember that
if our most powerful institutions cannot take us on our own terms, then
perhaps we should fight to change those institutions.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Chelsea Manning objects to the requirement of a doctor's stamp of approval
in a gender certification process. (photo: AP)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/01/transgender-military-b
an-chelsea-manninghttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/01/tran
sgender-military-ban-chelsea-manning
It's Right to End the Ban on Trans People in the Military - but Wrong to Set
Conditions
By Chelsea Manning, Guardian UK
05 July 16
The new policy says trans people should be 'stable in their gender ... as
certified by a doctor'. That's not good enough. We're the ones who know our
gender best
pen trans service in the military is a necessary step toward protecting and
recognizing the humanity of trans people, but the military's proposal falls
far short of what is needed.
When I first heard about Thursday's announcement I was grinding and sanding
metal to a polish at my prison job. The news was both a relief and reminder
of how little we can count on the principles of equality and institutions
like the military to bring justice to our community.
Even within the military inclusion framework, many issues remain unresolved
and concerning. Right away, something didn't sit right with me. We don't
need the military to be the gatekeeper of our gender expression and
identity. We should be able to define ourselves.
The policy outlined by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter would require new
recruits to be "stable in their identified gender for 18 months, as
certified by their doctor, before they can enter the military". How many
young trans people like myself fit this criteria? The idea of having a
gender certification process is a misuse of the medically accepted standards
of care. What is the stability of gender? Isn't gender an inherently
unstable concept - always being constrained by the various context and rules
under which we live?
I worry that this type of requirement will further entrench the gender
binary and further legitimize the control that administrators and medical
providers have over our bodies and our identities.
And what about those of us who are incarcerated? Will these rules apply to
us? I am deeply concerned that like so many policies, the impact of this
change won't penetrate the prison walls. What does it mean that the military
will recognize our gender, unless and until we are arrested, and then what?
This core identity is then stripped away and our birth assigned sex is
imposed on us?
But defining ourselves for who we are is one of the most powerful and
important rights that we have as human beings. No one knows my gender more
than I do. You do not know my gender better than I do. A doctor doesn't know
it better than I do. My parents don't know it better than I do. No one
experiences my gender in the way that I experience it. Presenting myself and
my gender is about my right to exist. With this policy, the military is
essentially saying "you can exist, but only on our terms". What they are
doing is taking away the control of our identity.
Gender presentation should reflect the person that you are. When you lose
control of your gender presentation you lose an important aspect of your
identity and existence. By setting so many caveats, time lines, standards,
and training, the military is making this far, far, more complicated and
bureaucratic than it needs to be. The simple reality is that we are who we
say we are.
When it comes to trans inclusion in the military, at this point, there are
still too many questions. We don't yet know whether this policy of
"inclusion" will be in name only and whether medical providers and
commanders will find ways to push us out, dehumanize us and cast us as
freaks.
Of course, this is not the first time the military has confronted its own
entrenched prejudice.
But if history is any guide - for instance the racial and gender
integrations of the 20th century - the US armed forces are more than capable
of overcoming such obstacles.
No matter how this shift in policy rolls out, I hope that we remember that
if our most powerful institutions cannot take us on our own terms, then
perhaps we should fight to change those institutions.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
