This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Culture / Post-Cold War Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force Post-Cold War task force

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Canterbury/International Human Rights Law (Semester One 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AnchorsAway10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlin.stewart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the article in much depth (and I haven't checked the sources yet either), but it surprises me that this article doesn't make a distinction at all between transgender men and transgender women in a field where sexism has always played a large part (see Conscription and sexism). This might be something worth expanding upon if someone feels like it, as it seems awkward to ignore it. ~Mable (chat) 12:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The line "Furthermore, the often cited risks of cross hormone treatment are rare,[15] and not likely to cause any significant issues to the military" carries two assertions that don't seem well supported. The first assertion is that the risks are rare based on ^[1] which "assessed mortality rates in transsexual subjects receiving long-term cross-sex hormones" and came to the conclusion that mortality rates are elevated but primarily not due to hormone treatment. However, mortality rates are a flawed proxy for overall health and physical ability, so this study does not seem to adequately refute the argument that cross hormone treatment impairs health and physical ability. Furthermore, the assertion can be easily misinterpreted to imply that there are negligible health risks for transgender soldiers, which is untrue. The second half of the sentence is a conclusion that is wholly buttressed by the validity of the first assertion.

It would be better understood if there was a clarification made between the "guard" and the "reserve" in the line, "It is estimated as of 2014 that there are approximately 15,500 transgender individuals either serving on active duty or in the guard or reserve forces within the U.S. Military." under the "United States" subheading. I believe there should be a revision differentiating between the two by adding the phrases "National Guard" and "Army Reserve". AnchorsAway10 (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To better introduce the portion of text regarding Chelsea Manning and the healthcare debate under the "United States" subheading, I believe it would be useful to use quotations or information from the article, "Toward Complete Inclusion: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Military Service Members after Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" from Brandon Alford and Shawna Lee, such as, "...another key element of full transgender inclusion is eliminating discriminatory policies and practices within health care services (Yerke & Mitchell, 2013) and implementing the worldwide Standards of Care (Coleman et al., 2012). A key issue for the transgender population is the use of military medical insurance to transition from one gender to another." This idea or a paraphrase of this idea should be represented at the beginning of the paragraph to introduce the information about Chelsea Manning. AnchorsAway10 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some important sources that I believe could benefit this particular page are as follows:

Alford, Brandon, and Shawna J. Lee. "Toward Complete Inclusion: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, And Transgender Military Service Members After Repeal Of Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Social Work 61.3 (2016): pp. 257-265. Academic Search Complete. Accessed 20 Sept. 2016.

Ender, Morten G., Michael D. Matthews, and David E. Rohall. "Cadet And Civilian Undergraduate Attitudes Toward Transgender People." Armed Forces & Society 42.2 (2016): pp. 427-435. Academic Search Complete. Accessed 20 Sept. 2016.

Crosbie, Thomas, and Marek N. Posard. "Barriers To Serve: Social Policy And The Transgendered Military." Journal Of Sociology 52.3 (2016): pp. 569-585. Academic Search Complete. Accessed 29 Sept. 2016.

Cooper, Helene. "Pentagon Set to Lift Barrier to Transgender People Openly Serving in the Military." New York Times. (2016): pp. A14. Social Sciences Abstracts (H.W. Wilson). Accessed 29 Sept. 2016.

Blickensderfer, Gretchen R. "Navy Promotes, then Discharges Trans* Sailor." Windy City Times. (2014). ProQuest. Accessed 29 Sep. 2016.

AnchorsAway10 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After the last paragraph in the subsection titled "Arguments for including transgender people in the military", I would like to add information from the source "Ender, Morten G., Michael D. Matthews, and David E. Rohall. "Cadet And Civilian Undergraduate Attitudes Toward Transgender People." Armed Forces & Society. 42.2 (2016): 427-435. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.". I would like my addition to cover the results of a survey conducted regarding the attitude of the United States military and civilians on transgender inclusion. My addition would be a relatively paraphrased version of the following: "This can also be demonstrated by the social experiment conducted less than one year prior to the repeal of the ban preventing transgender personnel from serving openly in the United States military. Morten G. Ender, David E. Rohall, and Michael D. Matthews presented the American military academy, Reserve Officers Training Corps, and civilian undergraduates with a survey to assess the general attitude on the prospect of the transgender community serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. After statistical analysis, 50.8% disagreed with the ban, 38.5% agreed, and 10.7% had no opinion. In regards to productivity, 72.6% of subjects say that transgender inclusion would have no impact on their ability to do their job, 20.0% said they were unsure, and 7.4% said they would be effected. Finally, on the subject of visibility, 21.8% of those interviewed said they would want transgender individuals to tell them their gender preferences, 56.1% said no preference, 14.6% said they should conceal their gender identity, and 7.5% claimed unsure. Overall, the majority of the people that participated in the survey supported the inclusion of the transgender community in the United States military." I think that the information in this source would strengthen the section with arguments for transgender inclusion with statistical data and analysis. AnchorsAway10 (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few more sources that I have been looking at in relation to my work on this page. Here are more I found that could be beneficial aside from the ones listed above.

Elders, M. Joycelyn, et al. "Medical Aspects of Transgender Military Service." Armed Forces & Society, 41.2. Academic Search Complete. (2015): pp. 199-220. Accessed 20 Sept. 2016.

Frank, Nathaniel. "The President's Pleasant Surprise: How LGBT Advocates Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Journal of Homosexuality, 60.2/3. Academic Search Complete. (2013): pp. 159-213. Accessed 20 Sept. 2016.

Parco, James E., David A. Levy, and Sarah R. Spears. "Transgender Military Personnel in the Post-DADT Repeal Era: A Phenomenological Study." Armed Forces & Society, 41.2. Academic Search Complete. (2015): pp. 221-242. Accessed 20 Sept. 2016.

Ramirez, Maria Heliana, et al. "If We Ask, What They Might Tell: Clinical Assessment Lessons From LGBT Military Personnel Post-DADT." Journal of Homosexuality, 60.2/3. Academic Search Complete. (2013): pp. 401-418. Accessed 20 Sept. 2016.

Sharpe, Virginia Ashby, and Uchenna S. Uchendu. "Ensuring Appropriate Care for LGBT Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration." Hastings Center Report, 44.0. Academic Search Complete. (2014): pp. S53-S55. Accessed 20 Sept. 2016.

Okros, Alan, and Denise Scott. "Gender Identity In The Canadian Forces: A Review of Possible Impacts on Operational Effectiveness." Armed Forces & Society, 41.2. Academic Search Complete. (2015): pp. 243-256. Accessed 29 Sept. 2016.

Harwood, Jake. "Intergroup Contact, Prejudicial Attitudes, And Policy Preferences: The Case of the U.S. Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy." Journal of Social Psychology 155.1. Academic Search Complete. (2015): pp. 57-69. Accessed 20 Sept. 2016.

Rollins, Joe, and H. N. Hirsch. "Sexual Identities and Political Engagements: A Queer Survey." Social Politics, 10.3. ProQuest. (2003): pp. 290-313. Accessed 29 Sep. 2016.

AnchorsAway10 (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kollar-Kotelly's decision on Trump's transgender ban is here. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv1597-61 100.15.117.207 (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AHC300 just moved this page from Transgender people and military service. I disagree with the move and think that it should have been proposed for discussion first. "Gender identity" is not the topic at issue here as all people identify with a gender (unless they are agender); it is specifically transgender people who have been barred from military service. Funcrunch (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the same goes for the just-moved Gender identity in the United States military. I will post to WT:LGBT for input on this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, AHC300's peremptory action is unwarranted and ought to be immediately reversed. Per Wikipedia, gender identity "can correlate with assigned sex at birth, or can differ from it completely." Obviously, this article is not about gender identity. It's about transgender people. KalHolmann (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto; was a mistake to move these two. Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. There is no reason to get particularly upset over this move, surely? I agree, however, that referring to transgender people specifically is probably the best way to go about this title. "Gender identity" is a bit vague, as it suggests a larger topic relating to men and women in the military. ~Mable (chat) 09:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bold and BRD are for article content. This situation is governed by WP:RM#CM. Only completely uncontroversial moves (mistakes, spelling errors, etc) should ben undertaken without discussion. Mathglot (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have expected such a move to be so controversial. May I suggest that AHC300 didn't expect it either and assume good faith? Either way, I am not entirely sure how to go about moving articles back, which is the biggest issue with the BRD process when it comes to page moves. ~Mable (chat) 10:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip: I am not suggesting that AHC300 acted in bad faith, but I feel that page moves should always be discussed first unless they are for very obvious reasons as Mathglot pointed out. Especially when an article is likely to be attracting a lot more attention, given the recent news about a judge blocking the ban on trans people serving in the U.S. military. Funcrunch (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I also don't agree with this move; "transgender people" is clearer and more accurate. If the idea was consistency with Sexual orientation and military service, it is that page which should be moved. (Not a bad idea, actually.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: Following the renaming of this article, AHC300 removed the trans-related content from Sexual orientation and military service; KalHolmann reverted them. Funcrunch (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip: Disagreeing with someone is not the same as assuming bad faith, it is merely disagreeing with someone. AHC300 has been around for several years, and has made innumerable good edits in this and other topic areas and is clearly here to build an encyclopedia. I assume that AHC300 moved the pages because they thought it would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. Getting pushback in this case, does not imply any lack of good faith, but probably just unfamiliarity with one of the very numerous policies and guidelines here. We are all subject to that, I know I am: I just learned something the other day when I raised the wrong kind of issue on a MOS page. I'm sure we have all been there. So now, AHC300 knows something about page moves and how the bar is higher than for content addition and removal that they didn't know before; that's a good thing, and never for a minute does it mean that anyone assumes bad faith on their part. I know I look forward to more of AHC300's contributions. How this particular issue shakes out, doesn't affect that. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip: Oh, and regarding your question about "how to go about moving articles back", the standard method is with a round-robin page move. I can do it, if there is consensus for it. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, thank you for volunteering. So far, we have a 5-to-0 consensus that the original article name "Transgender people and military service" should not have been changed. As soon as you are satisfied that the WP standard has been met, please execute the round-robin page move. KalHolmann (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for somehow feeling as though someone was being attacked. I think some poor communication took place here ^_^; But yeah, there's an obvious consensus to move back, so go right ahead. ~Mable (chat) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mathglot (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the section on the United States should be significantly shortened since there is already a separate article on the subject that is far more comprehensive and likely to be better maintained. Thoughts? --Mox La Push (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mox La Push, agreed. A brief summary would suffice. And thanks for your extensive edits earlier today, which improve this article in a way that will accommodate new developments in each country. KalHolmann (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit court rulings have indefinitely put any ban on transgneder troops on hold. US Supreme Court will probably have the final say on the issue, until that time US allows transgender troops to join and remain in the military. AHC300 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new ban, so yes it can be enacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.213.49.148 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong See On March 23, 2018, Maj. David Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesperson, told the Washington Blade that the “DOD will still comply with federal court rulings and continue to assess and retain transgender service members,”.^[1] On March 24, 2018, Eastburn said that given ongoing lawsuits and court rulings on the issue that there is "likely be no immediate impact on transgender service."^[2] The Memorandum for Sector Commanders, Battalion Commanders, MEPS Commanders, Directors, and Special Staff Officers, issued December 8, 2017, issued a policy guidance to recruits to explain how to enlist transgender individuals and states that the memorandum “shall remain in effect until expressly revoked.”^[3] AHC300 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the Petagon. There is a difference between having a law and enacting it. AHC300 (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the for and against arguments are very biased. They do not express a neutral worldview. I believe they should be merged with each related set of arguments and counterarguments being placed in one paragraph each. 01:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoolbus777 (talk • contribs)

Why are most countries in the map shown in grey, ie "has no military"? This cannot be correct. Sqgl (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sqgl Actually the map uses two colors of grey: dark grey for no military, and the regular light gray map color for...what I assume is no data? Or perhaps no official stance? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the original svg and I see that a legend item got lost, so I've restored it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek Thanks, the restoration indeed clears it up, although ideally the new item would be light grey not white. Sqgl (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sqgl I'm not sure what you mean? I matched the hexadecimal color codes. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for South Africa has one source (50) which is from a small news site. I am unsure if this meets secondary sourcing standards. No primary source from the military is available either. Please provide additional sources if available. Zoozoor (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.gov.za has all the information you need Yikes2004 (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]