Transgender in the CF (merged)

[MARS]

I speak from a Class A reserve point of view (not me, the members transitioning), but I also speak as someone who has first hand experience guiding one soldier and one sailor though this process.

Despite the fact that the CF has encountered this in years past and is dealing with multiple cases at present, there is no official policy that anyone has been able to articulate to me.  As someone said, they are currently examined individually, and perhaps since the numbers aren't that large and the process somewhat unique from person to person, maybe we don't need a policy - yet.

The CF won't change your gender on your ID card until a MO signs off on it.Although my local Base Surgeon seems to think he will be able to do it, I suspect it will need to go to DMedPol.  The MO won't sign off on it until the member's civilian doctor signs off on it.  Again, this member is undergoing the procedure through the civilian health care system, so really, the CF doesn't have to do much, except approve it. 

When the med folks have signed off, the sex is legally and officially changed in the eyes of the CF. 

Accommodations are made where possible during transition - this is done at a local level and does require compromise and understanding on the part of all concerned, including the individual.  In the navy, bunking is not really an issue because the sailor, if posted to a ship, will be landed as these transitions include temporary medical categories.  It is not overly difficult to accommodate someone ashore where private rooms at accommodations blocks and either private showers or designated shower times can be arranged.  You must hold briefings - harassment, etc., to reinforce existing policies.  It really doesn't matter what people's personal views and objections may be, they must and will continue to act and perform in a manner that reflects positively on the CF.  While the transition is taking place, the Ship's Company has a need to know about it.  If you are going to make a particular wash place out of bounds for certain times everyday, the Ship's Company needs to know why.  They need to know that Command is fully supportive of the situation and will take whatever steps are required to help effect the change and to provide a harassment and discrimination free environment.  There is more, but it is all administrative and not really germane to the questions being asked here.  PM me if anyone doesn't feel comfortable asking about these things in an open forum.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I read somewhere that the CF has policy about transgender people in regards to those transitioning while in service and before joining the CF, yet the exact policy is not posted anywhere that I can find. It is supposedly a decision that was made in recent years at least, so I am wondering if anyone knows of it or have access to where that policy may be written? I know the jiff of it is the trans person must of already had SRS before being accepted, but exact wording can make a huge difference as to what that means, and the reasons behind it.

It is unlikely that you will find a (comprehensive/consolidated) policy document about the enrolment of transgendered persons into the CF - it just doesn't come up that often.  However that doesn't mean that the circumstances (particularly related medical issues) of the individual are not taken into account during the enrolment process.

A recent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision concerned the refusal to enroll a transgendered person into the CF, however the reason for that refusal was not specifically the gender reassignment, but that the person did not meet the required medical category.  (It should be noted that there have been transgendered individuals who did meet the minimum medical category and have served)  In this case, the tribunal decison was in favour of the CF.

Unfortunately, the written decision is not yet translated available in English on the CHRT site, however, if you can struggle through it in French it makes interesting reading and provides an excellent narrative about the many steps that CF medical authorities can go through before making a final decision that a potential recruit's medical condition will preclude him/her from serving.

Montreuil vs Canadian Forces
http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-fra.asp?doid=983&lg=_f&isruling=0

Some reference is made (in the decision) to the non-existence of a CF policy regarding transgendered persons, however it concludes, despite the lack of a formal written policy, that the CF does not ignore the reality of transgendered individuals, nor does it discriminate against them in recruiting.

 

[mellian]

I do not consider Michelle Montreuil a good example nor reflective of trans people as a whole, considering she is known to have initiated various lawsuits using the trans card and not the most agreeable person.

 

[gcclarke]

I do not consider Michelle Montreuil a good example nor reflective of trans people as a whole, considering she is known to have initiated various lawsuits using the trans card and not the most agreeable person.

Oh, I don't think anyone's trying to make the argument that she was an ideal candidate. It's just that her case provided a good example of how the CF, despite perhaps not having a comprehensive policy, does not discriminate against the Transgendered, and is quite willing and able to accommodate their needs. Or at least that we were able to convince the CHRT of that.

 

[PMedMoe]

That aside, for those who legally changed their sex without getting the full sex change (yet usually still involve some kind of medical procedure such as hysterectomy or orchiectomy) as it is optional in certain provinces along with achieving other provincial requirements, would they be accepted into the CF administratively or/and medically whether or not they started transitioning recently or years ago (which is becoming more and more of the latter). That is the scenario I am basing my question on.

How an you legally change your sex after only having a hysterectomy?  By that definition, women who are barren, would be "transgendered".  I've had a hysterectomy and I am still 100% female.  The difficulty would be in the constantly having to provide separate accommodations, washrooms, etc.  Not to mention, what standard would they have to perform on the ExPres test?  I think (at least for the CF), it's either all nor nothing.

 

[armychick2009]

I hope I didn't make it sound like you could "visibly" see or tell a transgendered person from a non-transgendered person

Where I am from (small northern ontario city, about 50 000 folk) I know of at least five transgendered people who are friends of mine. Some you can tell... some you can not. Some have hotter legs than I do which makes me slightly jealous but this jealousy would happen with or without their transgenderedness  :

I'm comfortable with it... and if I had someone in basic who was legally a woman but still hadn't gone through the surgery, I'd be comfortable having them in my sleeping/showering area.  Just sayin'

 

[leroi]

quoting mellian and bolded by me:

The thing with trans people is, not all of them are easily recognizable as such, hence one cannot be so sure if they have met a trans person or not, especially if they base their understanding of trans people on stereotypes.

A low ball estimate I have heard is there is around 30 trans individuals currently serving Canadian Forces, and more so among those who have served.

While it's true that "trans people may not be recognizable," I would think, if they were applying to the Canadian Forces, or in fact any employer, it would be in their best interest to immediately self-identify. It would be fool-hardy not to do so--regardless of where they were applying for a job.

 

[Yrys]

I don't see how it would be in their best interest
to do so with any employer.

There is many prejudice against transgender.
As there is against homosexuel or bisexual or ...

I wouldn't suggest full disclosure to all potential
employers!

 

[mellian]

How an you legally change your sex after only having a hysterectomy?  By that definition, women who are barren, would be "transgendered".  I've had a hysterectomy and I am still 100% female.  The difficulty would be in the constantly having to provide separate accommodations, washrooms, etc.  Not to mention, what standard would they have to perform on the ExPres test?  I think (at least for the CF), it's either all nor nothing.

That is only if you applied to change the sex designation on your birth certificate, not an automatic determination. In Ontario for example, the requirement to change the sex designation on your birth certificate is having a 'transsexual surgery', which is presently understood as covering SRS, orchiectomy, hysterectomy, hormones replacement, and so on, as long at least two doctors signs off on it (one who did the surgery, and the other to confirm). From what I understand with Canadian Forces, you will be seen and treat as the sex shown on the birth certificate, unless otherwise stipulated if transitioning within the CF. So for the Expres, they would follow the standard relevant to their legal sex.

As for performance capabilities, that is just another kettle of fish, especially in regards to sports where in the end, more about how much testosterone you have in you than sex or gender. 

 

[FDO]

I have a question. While I have no doubt in my mind that transgender surgery is necessary for the person involved and in the long run will make for a better serving member. My question is why will the CF pay to have this surgery done but not for Lasik or any other type of eye corrective surgery? Not having to wear glasses would make a soldier more effective in the field when it's raining or foggy and the the gasses don't get wet. Or fogged up in cold. I know at sea I've had to take my glasses off while on watch because it was either raining or foggy. It made me a less effective lookout. Also the money that would have been saved by not having to buy me glasses every couple of years or when I've lost them or had them broken.


I have heard that the CF is considering paying for corrective surgery. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

 

[mellian]

While it's true that "trans people may not be recognizable," I would think, if they were applying to the Canadian Forces, or in fact any employer, it would be in their best interest to immediately self-identify. It would be fool-hardy not to do so--regardless of where they were applying for a job.

It really depends on the employment. If it is just an average office job with no medical requirements, then there is no need to disclose to the employer. If like the Canadian Forces require a full medical, then at that point you are obligated to bring it up as part of your medical history. Since the medical is mainly confidential, there is no need to disclose to all those you are serving with.

 

[mellian]

I have a question. While I have no doubt in my mind that transgender surgery is necessary for the person involved and in the long run will make for a better serving member. My question is why will the CF pay to have this surgery done but not for Lasik or any other type of eye corrective surgery? Not having to wear glasses would make a soldier more effective in the field when it's raining or foggy and the the gasses don't get wet. Or fogged up in cold. I know at sea I've had to take my glasses off while on watch because it was either raining or foggy. It made me a less effective lookout. Also the money that would have been saved by not having to buy me glasses every couple of years or when I've lost them or had them broken.

Because Lasik it is not in the same league? Lasik is not required for your physical and mental health, where sex change is a long with being a requirement to treated and accepted as your gender identity. I mean, who has suicidal or postal thoughts simply for not having laser eye correction?

I have heard that the CF is considering paying for corrective surgery. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

A question for another thread.

 

[FDO]

Because Lasik it is not in the same league? Lasik is not required for your physical and mental health, where sex change is a long with being a requirement to treated and accepted as your gender identity. I mean, who has suicidal or postal thoughts simply for not having laser eye correction?

May not have had suicidal thoughts but have you ever walked into a warm space from the cold outside? On a ship you could wind up head first down a steel ladder on to a steel deck, or had to stand in the rain looking for a shipmate who has fallen over the side, or had the lives of others depend on you being able to see past your nose? Like I said I had no doubt about the importance of the mental health of anyone my question was a safety concern when I have the lives of others in my hands.

 

[PMedMoe]

I have a question. While I have no doubt in my mind that transgender surgery is necessary for the person involved and in the long run will make for a better serving member. My question is why will the CF pay to have this surgery done but not for Lasik or any other type of eye corrective surgery?

IIRC, it's because gender reassignment surgery is covered under OHIP.  Not sure about other province's health plans.

No offense, but I could have placed a bet on how soon that question came up.  It's pretty much inevitable.  By the same token, they will cover someone having laser treatment for acne or rosacea but not for broken capillaries on the face.  Who knows why? 

 

[leroi]

I don't see how it would be in their best interest
to do so with any employer.

There is many prejudice against transgender.
As there is against homosexuel or bisexual or ...

I wouldn't suggest full disclosure to all potential
employers!

Yrys, you are entitled to your opinion that is the Canadian way and I respect you for it.

As an employer, I would want to know this information so I could accommodate someone with a different orientation.
I would want to be able to ensure their needs were being met and that they would not be discriminated against by others.
How can an employer accommodate for the needs of an individual undergoing this kind of transition if the employer is not informed?
How could other female employees, some of whom may be of strictest Islam for example, feel comfortable sharing female restrooms, for example, with someone who is male-almost-female going through this process but who retains vestiges of the male member and pees standing up?

Although I would not want an employee to be forced by law to disclose this information, I still think it would be in both the employee and employers best interest to disclose to ensure accommodations can be met. It is not only managers, bosses and persons in positions of hiring authority in work places who discriminate against others. Colleagues and co-workers can be the worst--in my experience anyway.

Thank goodness employers violating the human rights of others can be challenged themselves--at least in this country, anyway.

 

[FDO]

I don't have OHIP here in Toronto. I didn't have MSI when I was in Halifax. I guess it all depends on what is deemed important and I know people's comfort within themselves is very high on the list and I can understand why. I can live with and have lived with glasses. I've never had to suffer through anything disfiguring or even close to what someone considering transgender surgery must be going through. Couldn't even begin to imagine what they are going through. I just wanted to see if anyone had heard anything on any of the eye surgeries. About a year ago I heard the powers that be were considering it.

The CF does not give us money for glasses they give us the glasses.

 

[Occam]

I have a question. While I have no doubt in my mind that transgender surgery is necessary for the person involved and in the long run will make for a better serving member. My question is why will the CF pay to have this surgery done but not for Lasik or any other type of eye corrective surgery? Not having to wear glasses would make a soldier more effective in the field when it's raining or foggy and the the gasses don't get wet. Or fogged up in cold. I know at sea I've had to take my glasses off while on watch because it was either raining or foggy. It made me a less effective lookout. Also the money that would have been saved by not having to buy me glasses every couple of years or when I've lost them or had them broken.


I have heard that the CF is considering paying for corrective surgery. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

See the first post in this thread, in particular the bolded part.

 

[mellian]

As an employer, I would want to know this information so I could accommodate someone with a different orientation.
I would want to be able to ensure their needs were being met and that they would not be discriminated against by others.
How can an employer accommodate for the needs of an individual undergoing this kind of transition if the employer is not informed?

While it may make sense for those who transition in the work place, what real purpose would a trans person have to disclose themselves when gaining new employments? Doing special accommodations to someone that does not need it just to satisfy others is a form of discrimination in itself.

How could other female employees, some of whom may be of strictest Islam for example, feel comfortable sharing female restrooms, for example, with someone who is male-almost-female going through this process but who retains vestiges of the male member and pees standing up?

Welcome to Canada, where everyone is different and live their own lives in their own ways!

Seriously, there are stalls in restrooms, whats between one's is normally not shown, and why would trans women still pee standing up? Oh, and technically trans people are accepted according to Islam, as per Saudi Arabia and Iran anyway. 

Although I would not want an employee to be forced by law to disclose this information, I still think it would be in both the employee and employers best interest to disclose to ensure accommodations can be met. It is not only managers, bosses and persons in positions of hiring authority in work places who discriminate against others. Colleagues and co-workers can be the worst--in my experience anyway.

There comes a time that a trans person can fend for themselves without the need of special treatment.

Thank goodness employers violating the human rights of others can be challenged themselves--at least in this country, anyway.

For every win, there has been more losses.

IIRC, it's because gender reassignment surgery is covered under OHIP.  Not sure about other province's health plans.

Sex/Genital Reassignment Surgery has not been covered by OHIP since 1998, and despite successes with OHR, Ontario Gov has no plans to cover it again any time soon, especially as other provinces have removed it from their coverage in the last year or so.

Why is a thread with a recruitment related question moved to Training?

 

[the 48th regulator]

Why is a thread with a recruitment related question moved to Training?

Because the original thread, that I merged this with, was in the training thread.  And I felt that it was the most suitable area of the two.

I apologize if this caused any offence, my intention was that relevant information would better suit users queries, on this topic, be combined in one thread.

It would make search of these types of questions, easier, as opposed to someone having to bounce around all over the place.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff

 

[Armymedic]

It is my opinion that as far as the CF is concerned, "it is our club, if you want to join our club, you can join under our rules. If you do not fit into our rules, then it is up to you to meet the criteria we set out for you to join."

In the following case, it is to complete all operations (which DND would pay for if the person in question was already serving) prior to enrollment.

Personally, I think that is fair in this case.

Here is a news article that may or may not shed light on the discussion:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jOQHpUsNMGA8BBhLUntSi74rF-yw

Transgendered soldiers fall into grey zone for otherwise open Canadian military

By Tobi Cohen (CP) – 14 hours ago

MONTREAL — Chris already has manly muscles, facial hair, a baritone voice and was accepted years ago by family and friends as a man.

But he's been told he cannot work for the Canadian military until he also gets a penis.

The story of this transgendered applicant to the Canadian Forces suggests that even in the far more liberal climate of recent years, there are still grey areas when it comes to sexual identity and the military.

The 31-year-old New Brunswicker does not want his real name published out of fear it might affect future job prospects. But he was willing to share his letter of rejection from the Department of National Defence and tell his story under a pseudonym.

The rejection letter identifies Chris as "Mr." and indicates the military would only reconsider "once a detailed assessment is provided by (a) family physician after the gender change is completed and definite gender identification can be made."

The military says it has no policies prohibiting transgendered people from serving. Spokeswoman Megan MacLean suggested questions could still arise over whether someone is deemed "medically able" to serve.

"If they try to join and are unable to medically serve, for whatever reasons, they are not recruited at the time and are told to come back once their medical situation is handled," MacLean said.

Chris has already undergone two sex-change surgeries and prefers to be addressed as a man. He says the military has forced him into a catch-22.

Here's his dilemma: he can't get a military job until he completes his sex-change procedures. But he can't afford the final $36,000 surgery unless he has a decent-paying job.

He's now filing a human-rights complaint at both the provincial and national levels and has returned to school to study social work should his policing career fail to pan out.

"The big issue is, OK, if I'm trying to get in the military, they're rejecting me because I don't have my operation," he said in an interview.

"If an employer can do that, how am I ever going to be able to pay for the operation?"

Fear for his job prospects explains why he wants to remain anonymous. His need for a good job is particularly pressing because his province's health plan will not cover the expensive procedure that would give him male genitals.

Meanwhile, he's spoken with other transgendered people and learned the recovery period is only a month. That leaves him baffled as to why the government might consider him medically incapable of serving - especially since he passed his pre-entry physical with flying colours.

He said the military risks shutting out qualified people. Many transgendered individuals never even bother with the final surgery since it hasn't been perfected yet, he said - and all these people would be left in limbo by the military.

"That's why I'm fighting right now," he said.

With degrees in criminal justice and corrections and 12 years' experience as a private investigator, he says he was told by recruiters he'd be a shoo-in for the job.

But when it came time for Ottawa to do a background check, much confusion arose. There was one glaring inconsistency when military personnel went to interview people for character references.

Some people referred to a "he" while others referred to a "she." On second glance, the military also realized he'd ticked off 'Female' in his application forms and the red flags went up.

"I put 'F' for female because legally here in New Brunswick we're not allowed changing 'F' to 'M' until our final operation," he said. "And because I'm going into policing, I was not going to be caught in a lie."

Egale Canada, a group that supports gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, facilitated the interview with the 31-year-old New Brunswicker.

The group's executive director said there's definitely room for the military to improve. The way it deals with transgendered members is one issue but the military also needs to make up for historic wrongs, Helen Kennedy said.

Prior to 1992, service members who were outed as homosexuals were driven out of the Canadian Forces. Dating back to the Second World War, many of them received dishonourable discharges which meant they couldn't have access to veterans' benefits.

Last spring, New Democratic Party MP Peter Stoffer acted on a resolution drafted by his party's Quebec wing and asked the federal government to track down those members and apologize.

He's also calling for a public apology and for veterans' benefits to be awarded to those who need them and are still alive.

He suspects the task will be tough as many veterans are probably deceased. Others will be reluctant to revisit what was undoubtedly a difficult period in their lives, but Stoffer thinks it's important and could be achieved through public service announcements.

"We discriminated against those wonderful people," he said. "We learned from it. We no longer do it.

"But the reality is, we still have an awful lot of people who've never been told yet: 'By the way, what we did was wrong. We're sorry and we're gonna help you out."'