Transgender in the CF (merged)

[BeyondTheNow]

Good post, totally agree with you. My concern would be the CAF turning into a Salem - esk environment. Going through people's electronic garbage cans, so to speak.

Saving one's beliefs for after hours didn't work well in the example I gave from out east.

And it’s certainly not my intent to infer that CAF should be. My main point, however, is that regardless of what education and measures are implemented in order to condition people to understand that certain remarks/behaviours are no longer work-appropriate/permitted, there’s always the ones who feel everyone should be entitled to hear what they have to say. Those are the problem ones—the ones who can dish out their beliefs and reasons for it, but can’t handle the possibility that they might be (dare the majority think) wrong. The ones who have zero ability to understand that they’re in the midst of those who may be deeply hurt/offended by their comments, and/or they just don’t care.

We all, myself included, have probably uttered an off-the-cuff comment that some may have frowned upon. But that’s an entirely different matter from expressed, hurtful comments about deeply personal things such as, (like you mentioned) religion, sexuality, etc. Some people just don’t get it.

 

[Daishi]

Who cares what's between someones legs? Or what they identify as? As long as they can do the job, effectively and without being a burden to their fellow "co-workers", let whoever in. Most of the issues are with people that are uncomfortable with their own sexuality or are bigoted in command level, making decisions.

If you want to identify as a black, lesbian, unicorn (a colourful example) and pop HRT pills/injections like candy, and if the forces can reasonably handle the pressure of providing the medications, then so be it. It's where our "society" is heading. As long as they can preform the trade they are in 100%, who cares?

If they want to serve our country, that's a resource we are in short supply of. Why would you turn a candidate away based on what they want to identify as?

 

[JesseWZ]

Who cares what's between someones legs? Or what they identify as? As long as they can do the job, effectively and without being a burden to their fellow "co-workers", let whoever in. Most of the issues are with people that are uncomfortable with their own sexuality or are bigoted in command level, making decisions.

If you want to identify as a black, lesbian, unicorn (a colourful example) and pop HRT pills/injections like candy, and if the forces can reasonably handle the pressure of providing the medications, then so be it. It's where our "society" is heading. As long as they can preform the trade they are in 100%, who cares?

If they want to serve our country, that's a resource we are in short supply of. Why would you turn a candidate away based on what they want to identify as?

I'm going to weigh in here as a Mentor...

Daishi Have you read this entire thread? Are you currently serving? Your post history indicates you are in the recruiting process. You will learn very quickly if you complete the recruiting process and join our ranks that your experience lends you credibility. Currently, you are neither transgender, nor in the CF (I assume, so please correct me if I'm wrong...). This thread is about transgender persons experience within the CF. While I applaud your willingness to serve Canada and desire to see the CF as a reflection of Canadian Society, there is a bit more to the discussion then the CF just being able to "provide the medications". It does disservice to your argument to wash over important details, which this thread spent the last 17 pages discussing.

Finally, the CF actually does have a surplus of applicants - we are not in short supply of candidates. I agree we are not in the business of turning away a candidate based on their gender identity, but neither can we not employ some level of scrutiny to our applicants to ensure they are medically fit to carry out their assigned tasks.

In short, it would be prudent to read the whole discussion to get a sense of what the discussion is currently focused on. Then, you can add an example, anecdote, or experience, or rebut a discussion point and support your position. Otherwise, it feels a bit like virtue signalling.

 

[TCM621]

“Weeding out” meaning that given the cross-section of the military (and public in general, of course) it’s reasonable, and expected, that there will be conflicting thoughts/opinions/feelings about a wide variety of subject matter. But as it’s clear that CAF is moving towards a certain expectation/direction towards inclusion, and especially given the present-day ‘Respect in CAF’ initiative/ethos, there are certain thoughts/opinions/feelings that are not suitable to be expressed/discussed in the workplace. Mostly common sense remarks that any reasonable person should understand shouldn’t be aired as common knowledge. Save that stuff for one’s friends behind closed doors or after hours or whatever.

I would like to direct your attention to section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

At no point in that document is a Canadian required to keep their beliefs "behind closed doors".  We are not talking about harassment or discrimination now. We are talking about beliefs and expressions of those beliefs. One should be polite and not interfere with someone in the work environment but if someone is devoutly Muslim, for example, and they believe homosexuality is forbidden by Allah should they lie when asked?

 

[BeyondTheNow]

I would like to direct your attention to section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms

At no point in that document is a Canadian required to keep their beliefs "behind closed doors".  We are not talking about harassment or discrimination now. We are talking about beliefs and expressions of those beliefs. One should be polite and not interfere with someone in the work environment but if someone is devoutly Muslim, for example, and they believe homosexuality is forbidden by Allah should they lie when asked?

I believe I was making the point clear in my posts that I’m specifally referring to those whose comments DO fall into harassment and discrimination. Hurtful, offensive comments. If not, I’ll make that clear now. That’s what I’m talking about.

 

[serenamorrow]

Discussion is digressing, as expression beliefs/opinions vs safe work environment is more general separate topic.

I've been friends with individuals whom I often disagree with topics, and even disagree with certain aspects of each other, yet we still get along base on actions, character, mutual respect, able to work together professionally and other contexts even if not personally. Short from advocating/agreeing/believing violence on other people base on certain aspects of who they are or their politics...there is no point shutting down someone, unfriend or terminate or discriminate or what have you base one or two thing you disagree, or base on who they voted.

It comes a point though, that once you achieve mutual respect and working well well together professionally, do not want to jeopardize that. So refrain from saying or doing things, else risk uncomfortable working environment, if not for them, then for yourself.

Anyway. I am in the recruitment process, and not in the CF at present.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Tcm621]
At no point in that document is a Canadian required to keep their beliefs "behind closed doors".  We are not talking about harassment or discrimination now. We are talking about beliefs and expressions of those beliefs. One should be polite and not interfere with someone in the work environment but if someone is devoutly Muslim, for example, and they believe homosexuality is forbidden by Allah should they lie when asked?
[/quote]

Except today you may very well need to keep your beliefs to yourself if you want to keep your job. The CAF especially included.

[quote author=BeyondTheNow] Hurtful, offensive comments.
[/quote]

The threshold for what's offensive these days seems pretty low.

 

[TCM621]

I believe I was making the point clear in my posts that I’m specifally referring to those whose comments DO fall into harassment and discrimination. Hurtful, offensive comments. If not, I’ll make that clear now. That’s what I’m talking about.

As long as we are making a distinction between the expression of one's belief and using those beliefs to justify harassment and/or discrimination, I think we are on the same page.

 

[211RadOp]

CANFORGEN was posted today.

CANFORGEN 043/19 - CMP 026/19 181954Z MAR 19

CF MIL PERS INSTR 01/19 // INSTR PERS MIL 01/19

UNCLASSIFIED

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CANFORGEN IS TO ANNOUNCE THE RELEASE OF THE UPDATED CF MIL PERS INSTR 01/19 TRANSGENDER GUIDANCE, WHICH SUPERCEDES CF MIL PERS INSTR 01/11 MANAGEMENT OF CF TRANSSEXUAL MEMBERS

2. GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSSION ARE NOW PROHIBITED GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. THE PREVIOUS CF MIL PERS INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN REVISED TO ALIGN WITH NEW LEGISLATION AND POLICIES ADDRESSING HUMAN RIGHTS

3. THE CAF IS COMMITTED TO BEING INCLUSIVE. IN PARTICULAR, THE CAF RESPECTS EVERY MEMBER S RIGHT TO DEFINE THEIR OWN GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSION THIS INSTRUCTION IS PROVIDED TO ASSIST COMMANDING OFFICERS AND TRANSGENDER CAF MEMBERS IN UNDERSTANDING THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. KEY POINTS INCLUDE:

a. RESPECTING AND PROTECTING THE PERSONAL AND MEDICAL PRIVACY OF THE TRANSGENDER CAF MEMBER,

b. ESTABLISHING AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE TRANSGENDER CAF MEMBER AND THEIR CO, AND

c. USING A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH IN DEVELOPING AN ACCOMODATION PLAN

4. COMMANDING OFFICERS MUST ENSURE MEMBERS UNDER THEIR COMMAND ARE PROVIDED WITH A WORKPLACE FREE FROM HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION. THE RISK OF BREACHING THIS HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERATIVE MAY BE HEIGHTENED WHEN A TRANSGENDER CAF MEMBER SEEKS TO ALIGN THEIR GENDER EXPRESSION WITH THEIR GENDER IDENTITY. IMMEDIATE LEADERSHIP ACTION IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS ANY DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT IN ORDER TO REINFORCE DIVERSITY AS A CORE CAF VALUE THAT IS CRITICAL TO OPERATIONAL SUCCESS

5. TO PROTECT SAFETY, COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE REMINDED OF THEIR REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT OPERATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENTS AND/OR INDIVIDUAL RISK ASSESSMENTS IAW DAOD 5516-4, RESTRICTIONS OF DUTY

6. FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THIS INSTRUCTION, INQUIRIES MAY BE MADE TO THE DIRECTORATE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY

7. THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAN BE ACCESSED AT HTTP://CMP-CPM.MIL.CA/EN/POLICIES/CF-MIL-PERS-INSTR.PAGE
SIGNED BY LGEN C.A. LAMARRE, CMPC

 

[Jarnhamar]

Will this CANFORGEN be like the Boot and Beard CANFORGENs and the CoC interpret it how they see fit?

 

[dimsum]

Will this CANFORGEN be like the Boot and Beard CANFORGENs and the CoC interpret it how they see fit?

The MSM would have a field day if it happened that way.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Will this CANFORGEN be like the Boot and Beard CANFORGENs and the CoC interpret it how they see fit?

Yours too, eh?

 

[dangerboy]

Will this CANFORGEN be like the Boot and Beard CANFORGENs and the CoC interpret it how they see fit?

If you read the policy there is not much to interpret, it spells things out fairly clearly. Most of the info is nothing new and fairly common sense.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If you read the policy there is not much to interpret, it spells things out fairly clearly. Most of the info is nothing new and fairly common sense.

The whole LGBT2Q+ thing is about as new as you can get for any organization.

The CAF? An organization that can still, in many cases, barely get its head around legalizing some facial hair? Even newer....

Sadly, because so many other 'new things' have been dumped on the organization, more or less all at once and without much of a well thought out change leadership strategy, I'm sure that we'll be seeing stress fractures appear in a variety of places....and not just between the eyebrows of the RSM

 

[kajsmetke]

The whole LGBT2Q+ thing is about as new as you can get for any organization.

The CAF? An organization that can still, in many cases, barely get its head around legalizing some facial hair? Even newer....

Sadly, because so many other 'new things' have been dumped on the organization, more or less all at once and without much of a well thought out change leadership strategy, I'm sure that we'll be seeing stress fractures appear in a variety of places....and not just between the eyebrows of the RSM

Yes exactly..but this is what about is our world now ..  but what do you think about LGBT2Q thing?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yes exactly..but this is what about is our world now ..  but what do you think about LGBT2Q thing?

What exactly do you mean by "thing"? 

 

[garb811]

I’d also be curious as to why some people seem to think this is “new”. LBGTQ+ pers have been serving openly since 1992. That includes the first serving member to undergo sex reassignment surgery as well. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

I’d also be curious as to why some people seem to think this is “new”. LBGTQ+ pers have been serving openly since 1992. That includes the first serving member to undergo sex reassignment surgery as well.

I don't really think it's been genuinely accepted until recently. I think a lot of lipservice was paid to it in the past.

 

[mariomike]

LBGTQ+ pers have been serving openly since 1992.

For reference,

New York Times
OCT. 11, 1991

Canada Ending Anti-Gay Army Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/world/canada-ending-anti-gay-army-rules.html

 

[dapaterson]

The whole LGBT2Q+ thing is about as new as you can get for any organization.

New?  The former policy on transgender CAF members was about a decade old.  As I recall, the CAF prohibitions on homosexuality were phased out a quarter century ago.

If anyone thinks this is new, they haven't been paying attention.