Military Culture: European

Attitudes and policies toward homosexuality and gay and lesbian personnel in European militaries vary widely. Several countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and have granted them the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts. Other countries neither ban nor support gay and lesbian service members, and a small group continue to ban homosexual personnel outright.
The countries that have become most tolerant of homosexuality include the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway. The most restrictive include Turkey, Greece, and Italy. Countries such as Belgium, France, Switzerland, and Germany lie somewhere in between on the spectrum of acceptance of homosexuality in their respective military cultures.
Great Britain is a unique case. In 2000, it lifted its long-standing ban on gay and lesbian service members, falling into line with the other Northern European countries. Yet many scholars and military officials have long characterized the British military as inhospitable to sexual minorities.
Both the British and Dutch militaries have received much critical and scholarly attention--the first for its recent and somewhat surprising decision to lift its ban, and the second for its thirty-year history of allowing openly gay and lesbian personnel to serve in its military.
Even though these countries do not represent the experiences or attitudes of all European militaries, they do suggest a trend toward ever greater integration of homosexuals in the military.
Countries that Ban Homosexuals
Greece, Turkey, and Italy explicitly ban military service by gay men and lesbians, yet each country does so for subtly different reasons. Tellingly, in each of these countries, the larger culture has yet to accept homosexuality fully.
In Italy, gay men are currently exempted from military service. Prior to 1985, the military considered homosexuality a crime and punished those who committed homosexual acts. In 1985, the law changed, and the military began to classify homosexuality as a disease or condition and to exempt gay men and lesbians from military service on those grounds.
In modern Greece, homosexuality is not culturally accepted, and its military does not tolerate openly gay personnel. Greek law explicitly bans homosexuals from serving openly, and there has been little public discussion about changing this law.
Similarly, Turkish culture is not accepting of homosexuality. Officially, the Turkish military views gay men and lesbians as threats to the armed forces and discharges them for indecency if they are discovered.
Countries with Laissez-faire Homosexual Policies
Scholars describe France and Belgium as countries that have adopted laissez-faire approaches to homosexual personnel. That is, they do not officially exclude them, but they also do not explicitly guarantee their right to serve.
In Belgium, the military accepts gay men and lesbians into service. However, if the behavior of an individual who is gay or lesbian causes problems, that individual is subject to discipline or discharge. In some cases, homosexual personnel have been transferred from their unit if they have been too open with their sexuality.
The Belgian military also continues to reserve the right to deny gay and lesbian personnel high-level security clearances, for fear they may be susceptible to blackmail.
In France, indifference characterizes the official attitude towards homosexuals in the military. Although homosexuals are not banned from French military service, it is recognized that they may face greater challenges than their heterosexual counterparts. Thus, they are allowed to opt out of military service if they wish by declaring themselves unfit because of their sexual orientation.
Commanders and psychiatrists can also discharge gay and lesbian personnel if they feel they are disrupting their units and cannot fit in.
Full Tolerance of Gay and Lesbian Personnel
The Netherlands is the most tolerant of homosexuality of the European militaries. It has integrated gays and lesbians more fully than any other country. Yet Dutch scholars and activists continue to call for even greater efforts to remedy the subtle problems that remain.
Since the cultural revolutions of the 1960s, the Netherlands has been known for its general cultural tolerance of homosexuality, which has in turn influenced the military's policy on gays and lesbians.
Marion Anderson-Boers and Jan van der Meulen report that since the 1980s the Dutch people have largely come to a consensus on the issue of homosexuality. They note that polls have repeatedly shown that more than 90 percent of the public agree with the statement, "Homosexuals should have as much freedom as possible to lead their own lives."
The only exception to Dutch tolerance has been on the issue of gay adoption. In 1994, 53% of the population believed that gay and lesbian couples should not be able to adopt.
However, research on the Netherlands and homosexuality suggests that the Dutch "tolerate [homosexuality] at a distance." That is, sexual minorities are protected under law and tolerated in society, but many individuals still feel uneasy toward gay men and lesbians and continue to believe stereotypes about them.
In the 1970s the Dutch military ceased to consider homosexuality a reason to prevent individuals from entering the military. This policy change coincided with larger legal changes in the Netherlands, which included changing age of consent laws for same-sex contact to 16, the same as for heterosexual contact, and incorporating an anti-discrimination clause addressing sexual orientation in the Dutch constitution.
Yet officially allowing homosexuals to serve was only the first step in creating a more tolerant military culture. The Dutch military formed a working group called Homosexuality and Armed Forces to improve the climate for sexual minorities. In the 1980s, this group became the Homosexuality and Armed Forces Foundation, a trade union that continues to represent gay and lesbian personnel to the ministry of defense.
Although homosexuals in the Dutch military rarely experience any explicitly aggressive acts against them, they are troubled by subtle signs of homophobia and cultural insensitivity on the part of their heterosexual colleagues. Gay and lesbian military personnel are highly sensitive to these attitudes and typically respond by not expecting a high level of acceptance from their heterosexual colleagues, at least in terms of their sexual orientation.
Even so, a high level of loyalty characterizes homosexual personnel in the Dutch military. Indeed, research suggests that, given the difficulties they face, "only the most highly motivated, loyal homosexuals will choose a career in the armed services and persist in it."
In spite of the difficulties in fully integrating sexual minorities, the Dutch military continues to work to promote their inclusion. The Dutch military sees its duty as creating "the conditions under which all individuals can function fully." This acceptance of all types of people distinguishes the Dutch military from many other European militaries.
Great Britain's Monumental Shift in Policy
Long considered one of the more restrictive and homophobic of European militaries, the British Armed Forces reversed its position in 2000 and has taken steps in the past few years to create a more hospitable environment for gays and lesbians in its ranks.
In January 2000, the British Armed Forces lifted its ban on gay and lesbian personnel, following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. Like the United States, Britain had long excluded gay and lesbian service members and cultivated a military culture that defined itself in opposition to homosexuality.
For example, in 1994, the British Ministry of Defense justified its ban by arguing that "homosexual behavior can cause offense, polarize relationships, induce ill-discipline, and as a consequence damage morale and unit effectiveness."
Yet as increasing numbers of its allies, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and some of the European countries discussed above, lifted restrictions in the 1990s, the British policy became less tenable.
Unlike many other European countries, the British military also faced a much more organized gay and lesbian rights movement than many other European countries. This group of activists worked tirelessly to change the policy, and their legal challenges to the ban, which they began in 1994, eventually led to its removal.
The incorporation of the European Union Human Rights Act into British law allowed the legal challenges of these gay activists to overturn the ban. Unlike British legal protections, the European Union Human Rights Act implicitly protects gay men and lesbians from discrimination.
The small group of gay service members who challenged the ban first had to exhaust all British legal channels, but once they did, they were able to take their case before the European Court of Human Rights. Doing so allowed them to invoke the European Union Human Rights Act. The court ruled in their favor and required the British armed forces to reverse its discriminatory policy.
By all accounts, the lifting of the gay ban in the British military has been a success. Unlike those of other northern European countries such as the Netherlands, the new British policy does not explicitly guarantee gay men and lesbians the right to serve. Rather, it states that homosexuality in itself does not constitute grounds for dismissal.
The new British policy establishes a social code of conduct that applies to all service personnel. All service members are prohibited from engaging in social behavior that undermines the trust, cohesion, and operational effectiveness of the military. Such behavior includes unwelcome sexual attention, offensive displays of affection, or sexual harassment. The policy allows for discretion on the part of the commanding officer to decide what is appropriate.
A leading expert on the policy change, Christopher Dandeker has referred to the new policy as "don't fear it, don't flaunt it," emphasizing the restraint that the new policy requires of gay and lesbian personnel. Even though it allows them to serve, it requires them to privilege their identity and responsibilities as service personnel over their sexual orientation.
In the 2003 Iraqi War, British units, containing openly gay men and lesbians, often fought in joint operations with United States military. There is no evidence that serving with openly gay men and lesbians in any way adversely affected the performance of the American troops.
The policies in many of the countries that comprised the former Soviet Union are unclear and inconsistent. Some, including Estonia and the Czech Republic openly embrace homosexual personnel, while others, such as Hungary, maintain gay bans.
Russia's policy is much less clear. After the fall of the Soviet Union, no official policy existed, even though homosexuality was decriminalized in civilian society.
In 2003, Russia announced a new policy under which homosexuals who had problems with their sexual identity could be drafted only in times of war. According to gay activists in Russia, this new policy continues to allow well-adjusted gay men and lesbians to serve. Yet what the Russian military will do in practice remains unclear.
Part of the difficulty in understanding the military's policies and attitudes toward gay and lesbian personnel in many of the eastern European countries involves a different sense of sexual identity and its place in society. Whereas the question of homosexuality in the military has been highly politicized in the United States, it is not necessarily so in many European countries. Generally speaking, sexuality in these cultures is considered a much more private and personal aspect of one's identity than it is in the West.
Conclusion
Given the many different cultures that comprise the European continent, it is difficult to generalize about European military culture and homosexuality. Depending on the context, gays and lesbians are accorded everything from support and acceptance to silence and stigma.
Yet if the case of Great Britain is any indication of the general movement of European militaries and their cultures, then they are slowly growing more tolerant of gay and lesbian personnel in their ranks and are creating policies to reflect this change.

Article by Geoffrey W. Bateman is the Assistant Director for the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, a research center based at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that promotes the study of gays and lesbians in the military. He is co-editor of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the Military, as well as author of a study on gay personnel and multinational units. He earned his M.A. in English literature at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in eighteenth-century British literature and theories of genders and sexuality, but now lives in Denver, Colorado, where he is co-parenting two sons with his partner and a lesbian couple

IHAWKER, Thanks for posting this. We can now lay the issue that every country that openly allows gays in their military went off without a hitch to rest. It's a fallacy that some of us wish was true but just is not possible. They still have rules and guidelines for how gay members are to conduct themselves. And it points out that the government understands that GLB members my still face hardships at some units.

The British policy sounds to be working the best, something we could model a new policy after, "Don't fear it, don't flaunt it." For me that sounds like a good policy for life as well. No one even suspects me of being gay unless I let them know.

Even if the policy gets changed on paper, the military community is going to be the ones that have to find a way to make it work.

~Nyxt

This reminds me of an occasion in about 1990, when I attended a 'staff development' weekend run by the Territorial Army. At the end of the weekend, a regular army Major invited questions from those present.

One woman (unbeknownst to him, a reporter from local radio) asked him to defend the Army's ban on homosexuals within the force. Although I disagreed with his argument, it was put forward rationally, with a certain degree of logic, and he was clearly winning over a fair section of his audience.

He then wrapped it up with "and besides, we don't want a load of gay boys running around our barracks!"

quote:

And it points out that the government understands that GLB members my still face hardships at some units.

...

Even if the policy gets changed on paper, the military community is going to be the ones that have to find a way to make it work.

~Nyxt

Those actually serving will adjust fairly quickly. You really point out the disservice that current policy does for the military: servicemembers, gay and straight, cannot address the presence of gay personnel in a professional manner since everyone is forbidden to speak out.

It's just getting over the current law that is so difficult.

quote:

Originally posted by pnj101:
Those actually serving will adjust fairly quickly. You really point out the disservice that current policy does for the military: servicemembers, gay and straight, cannot address the presence of gay personnel in a professional manner since everyone is forbidden to speak out.

It's just getting over the current law that is so difficult.

I don't know about any other units, but at the little 17 man CG station and cutter I was at we talked about gays, and gays in the military openly from E-5 and down. Most of them no problem. One guy stated he would kill anyone he worked with that was gay. One said he would beat him up, but in reality all he ever did was through a hissy fit. Most didn't care one way or another. A couple did not like the idea but would deal with it, they have since changed their opinions to they wouldn't mind serving with gays after finding out I was.

So my unscientific theory is that a vast majority of the military will come about quickly to working without any problems once the policy is lifted. Around 5% will never accept it and that is where the problems will arise.

I do agree with you that getting enough support to change the law will be our most difficult step.

quote:

Originally posted by Nyxt:
I don't know about any other units, but at the little 17 man CG station and cutter I was at we talked about gays, and gays in the military openly from E-5 and down. Most of them no problem. One guy stated he would kill anyone he worked with that was gay. One said he would beat him up, but in reality all he ever did was through a hissy fit. Most didn't care one way or another. A couple did not like the idea but would deal with it, they have since changed their opinions to they wouldn't mind serving with gays after finding out I was.

So my unscientific theory is that a vast majority of the military will come about quickly to working without any problems once the policy is lifted. Around 5% will never accept it and that is where the problems will arise.

I do agree with you that getting enough support to change the law will be our most difficult step.

Your experience is not unusual at all but rather the norm, based on my three decades of service.

I have always maintained that education is the key, as was proven by what you experienced at your CG station.

quote:

Originally posted by Nyxt:
I do agree with you that getting enough support to change the law will be our most difficult step.

I feel we stand a very good chance of having the current DADT policy changed, but only if we unite and pursue the one issue … That Homosexuals Be Allowed To Serve Without Fear Of Being Discharged And Not Be Punished Or Discharged For Simply Being Homosexual. That is the basic core of the issue, nothing more and nothing less. We should not get into other issues such as civil union dependents, housing, medical care for partners etc. at this time. Those issues will all work out in time once homosexuals are allowed to serve legally. We have a much greater chance of change by taking this one step at a time and we need to realize noting will be accomplished until the core issue is resolved. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. In my view it is vital to take this once step at a time and the first step should only be to allow homosexuals to serve without fear of punishment or discharge for simply being gay.

quote:

Originally posted by IHAWKER:

quote:

Originally posted by Nyxt:
I do agree with you that getting enough support to change the law will be our most difficult step.

I feel we stand a very good chance of having the current DADT policy changed, but only if we unite and pursue the one issue … That Homosexuals Be Allowed To Serve Without Fear Of Being Discharged And Not Be Punished Or Discharged For Simply Being Homosexual. That is the basic core of the issue, nothing more and nothing less. We should not get into other issues such as civil union dependents, housing, medical care for partners etc. at this time. Those issues will all work out in time once homosexuals are allowed to serve legally. We have a much greater chance of change by taking this one step at a time and we need to realize noting will be accomplished until the core issue is resolved. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. In my view it is vital to take this once step at a time and the first step should only be to allow homosexuals to serve without fear of punishment or discharge for simply being gay.

I agree absoulutely, and if we're able to elect a Democrat into office next Pres. election, we may have the support necessary to change the law. I think, that as a society, AND as a military, we are able to deal with the change. Like you say, some will never accept it. That is fine. The tables will then be turned. They can either follow the rules, or face the consequences.

quote:

Originally posted by Nyxt:
Around 5% will never accept it and that is where the problems will arise.

Very true. This is also true of other issues such as women in the military and race. I am half-Hispanic, but have a very fair complexion. I was amazed when people would start talking to me and using a lot of racist language regarding Hispanics, African-Americans, and others. It was parallel to what I later experienced when I came out as gay: they were shocked to learn I was Hispanic, they were shocked to learn I was gay. The biggest difference of it all, was the Army paid me for speaking Spanish and tossed me out for being gay.

So there will always been a minority of individuals who oppose us, and they have the freedom to believe as they do, but we cannot allow them to dictate policy. Again it all goes back to professionalism and integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by IHAWKER:
I feel we stand a very good chance of having the current DADT policy changed, but only if we unite and pursue the one issue … That Homosexuals Be Allowed To Serve Without Fear Of Being Discharged And Not Be Punished Or Discharged For Simply Being Homosexual. That is the basic core of the issue, nothing more and nothing less. We should not get into other issues such as civil union dependents, housing, medical care for partners etc. at this time. Those issues will all work out in time once homosexuals are allowed to serve legally. We have a much greater chance of change by taking this one step at a time and we need to realize noting will be accomplished until the core issue is resolved. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. In my view it is vital to take this once step at a time and the first step should only be to allow homosexuals to serve without fear of punishment or discharge for simply being gay.

From House Resolution 1246, a bill currently proposed in the Congress:

SEC. 5. BENEFITS.

Nothing in this Act , or the amendments made by this Act , shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act' ).

SEC. 6. NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

Nothing in this Act , or the amendments made by this Act , shall be construed to create a private cause of action for damages.

For a complete copy of the bill, you can visit www.thomas.gov and type in HR 1246 in the search box as the bill's number.

- the rub as I've said about the Zogby question in question is, it refers to, "serve with," as I have posted on other boards numerous times, it's "general" language that yields "general" answers, and does not address "privacy" specifically. Why would it, having that knowledge kills the agument for the exact points I've been making ... stacked question, stacked results ... lousy H.R. recommendation.

- I have three issues with the current H.R. on the table; privacy, affirmative action initiatives to ensure equal opportunities, and excluding "T" in GLBT.

- There are "Ts" currently serving. Please refer to the national organization:

Transgender American Veterans Assoc. (TAVA)
PO Box 4513
Akron, Oh 44310
board@tavausa.org

Email the board and see if they agree with being legally and specifically excluded by way of Congressional policy, I think you'll be clearly informed otherwise.

It's one of the main arguments capable of killing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) currently on the table ... include but exclude, wha?

When the lights of Truth come on, propaganda roaches have one option ... run!

Write a fair, unambiguous and comprehensively-inclusive policy, or don't write anything new at all.

I don't know how we(you) get from here to there. One step at a time is the way to get the camels head under the tent. The hardcore resisters to change always insist that they know the endgame. Where are you taking me with this change? Surveys get very different results about the acceptance of new levels of tolerance when the discussion changes to endgame. I am not for this change (end dont tell...)because I see the Transgenders as next in line and rightly so. What about marriage definition, co-habiting with another not your wife/spouse? Currently an offense when it disturbs the neighbors, (Unit Commander included). The current situation is unsatisfactory to some. The alternatives are unsatisfactory to all who hold traditional norms of our culture dear to their heart. Serving is not a right. Too fat, stay out. Too dumb, stay out. Cain't lift a load, stay out. All discriminatory attitudes embedded in screening out individuals who could do something useful in the military.

rbenzelsr,

In case you weren't aware, gays and lesbians are ALREADY serving in the military -- sharing showers, barracks, latrines, tents, workspaces, "foxholes" and every other living and working arrangement with their straight counterparts. Don't Ask, Don't Tell allows gays to serve legally, and they have. They are serving right alongside their straight peers -- and where have the problems been that people so fear? Aren't there, evidently. Nobody seems to care.

Now, before someone says, "Yeah, but even though gays are serving now, DADT means that nobody knows who is gay, so there's no real loss of privacy." That argument is rebutted by the following facts:s

According to a recent Zogby International poll of Iraq/A-stan troops, 68% of them say they know for certain or suspect there are gays in their own unit.. 73% of the troops say they are comfortable working around gays and lesbians.

So the majority of our current troops already know for certain or assume there are gays working, showering, sleeping, etc. side-by-side with them -- and don't care!

So, why do we still need to kick out patriotic, trained, paid-for and experienced troops under Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

I had spent my last 12 years in the Air Force as an OSI Agent before retirement in '85. In the early 80's at Lackland AFB, and I really can't remember how it started, we were tasked, and probably through a base commander request to determine who, at LAFB were gay in high level security positions, essentially those possessing top secret clearances, such as Crypto, etc. That was an interesting request considering we had no idea how to find a gay. The second problem was how to you single out an organization w/o finding others in other organizations. Geez, we were coming up with, well, all females with short hair driving short bed Ford pickups are probably gay because most acted like men. You have to remember, these were the early 80's and lot the late 90's. Eventually, we wound up identifying off base gay clubs and writing down license numbers of vehicles which had base stickers on the windshields and cross checking those with pass & ID and then personnel records to those assigned to Crypto, etc. We found approximately 40-50 in several squadrons and started our interviews. The saddest part were the interviews b/c those who admitted they were gay knew they were going to be discharged and we knew it. We did not find one person who was not an outstanding Airman. Some were NCO's of the quarter, the year, had received citations of outstanding contributions to the AF and the community. All of those interviewed were truly broken up that they had to leave the Air Force. We knew this was bad, b/c we also knew this would all change someday, but not that day. Bottom line is I don't have a problem with gays in the military. In my time in the AF, I never heard of an incident involving a gay over being just gay. On the other hand, I have known straight Airman who got drunk and jumped off the top of barracks b/c they thought they could fly, drug dealers, medical officers who stole narcotics from their patients at Wilford Hall Medical Center while operating on them, child abusers, murderers, rapists, arsonists, suicides and "death through misadventure", "Mr. "Dickie Wavers", you name it, I saw it all in 20 years---but gays? Not a peep, not a sound--unless you want to consider those who saved lives and gave up their lives for others.

quote:

Originally posted by bornwarriorEME:
- the rub as I've said about the Zogby question in question is, it refers to, "serve with," as I have posted on other boards numerous times, it's "general" language that yields "general" answers, and does not address "privacy" specifically. Why would it, having that knowledge kills the agument for the exact points I've been making ... stacked question, stacked results ... lousy H.R. recommendation.

- I have three issues with the current H.R. on the table; privacy, affirmative action initiatives to ensure equal opportunities, and excluding "T" in GLBT.

- There are "Ts" currently serving. Please refer to the national organization:

Transgender American Veterans Assoc. (TAVA)
PO Box 4513
Akron, Oh 44310
board@tavausa.org

Email the board and see if they agree with being legally and specifically excluded by way of Congressional policy, I think you'll be clearly informed otherwise.

It's one of the main arguments capable of killing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) currently on the table ... include but exclude, wha?

When the lights of Truth come on, propaganda roaches have one option ... run!

Write a fair, unambiguous and comprehensively-inclusive policy, or don't write anything new at all.

The reason HR 1246 does not address the "T" is because Don't Ask, Don't Tell does not address "T". Transgender military personnel fall under medical. Don't get me wrong, I am all for Trans equality, but trans issues in the military does not fall under Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Somehow I don't think born is going to read you reply (it's been quite a while), but I recall that most trans are hetro (think Eddie Izzard). Thus their shouldn't be a problem. At least one would think not...

quote:

Originally posted by sirhamalot:
Somehow I don't think born is going to read you reply (it's been quite a while), but I recall that most trans are hetro (think Eddie Izzard). Thus their shouldn't be a problem. At least one would think not...

That was my misconception as well. But in fact, it is still a misconception. The DADT law does not affect transgender personnel in the same way that the medical regulations do. For instance, a female that is transition to a male, or vice-versa, mostly fall under medical regulations. But here is some information from SLDN's website to help explain.

Military regulations effectively prohibit service by transgender persons. The rules and regulations are different those for lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. Lesbian, gay and bisexual service members are barred from service under a statute known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does not directly address military service by transgender persons because by definition it is a ban on military service by lesbian, gay and bisexual people. However, gender non-conforming service members are often perceived as being lesbian or gay by others in the military and therefore may end up being investigated under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The military regulations that directly apply to transgender individuals break down into two basic categories: 1) medical regulations, and 2) conduct regulations. How these regulations may impact transgender individuals depends on what their service status is with the military.

Entering the Military – Transgender individuals are prohibited from entering military service by medical regulations. To join the military, potential service members are required to undergo a physical examination as part of the entry process. During this examination, the military may reject the potential service member if he or she has had any type of genital surgery. Furthermore, even if the potential service member has not had surgery but identifies as transgender, the military considers this to be a mental health condition which disqualifies them from entering military service. Transgender individuals may request a waiver to enter the military, although waivers are difficult to obtain. Any transgender individual interested in joining the military should contact SLDN for more information about the waiver process.

Active Duty Military – Transgender individuals who are already in the military and who are thinking about beginning their transition should think twice about this decision. The military currently has a strong bias against service by transgender individuals and is unlikely to provide the medical support necessary for transitioning service members. The medical and mental health regulations described above apply to currently serving individuals, so even if transgender service members seek treatment from civilian health care providers, they are at risk because they have a duty to report such treatment to the military. Failure to abide by these regulations could result in criminal prosecution by the military.

Also, the military strictly regulates uniform and grooming standards by gender. "Cross-dressing" or perceived "cross-dressing," even in the context of following medical protocol in advance of full transition, will probably be considered a violation of military regulations and result in discipline, discharge or criminal prosecution.

Individual Ready Reserve Military – Transgender persons recalled to duty from the inactive reserve may need to consider halting their transition process while they complete their active duty requirement because of the regulations discussed above. Otherwise, transitioning or post-transitioning reservists may be