British Army colonel claims trans personnel unlikely to be able to serve beyond 2026

They took off their dress to make clear that they weren't representing the military. Although a t-shirt underneath would have made more sense.
I like to think our country wouldn't discriminate against trans people by banning them from the military, as Trump has done.

So the usual evidence-free hyperbole then?

What he means is that the Forces will be obliged to stop allowing men like him into Female soldiers’ accommodation, shower blocks or toilets.

He will still be able to serve - he just has to use correctly sexed facilities.

Lol, of course the whole show starts with him removing his clothing! As always, the opportunity to get their histrionics on is really what this community is all about I'm honestly not the least bit shocked or surprised.

I'm in the US and I don't believe there needs to be a "ban" on service members who identify as trans bc it is completely irrelevant. As with anyone who wishes to serve in the military, you need to meet a certain physical criteria of combat readiness. Heck even having flat feet can disqualify you from serving. So if you're coming into the military with some "condition" that "requires" a ton of medical interventions that should automatically disqualify you anyway as it impacts your combat readiness.

Additionally, we're all pretty much accepting at this point that when it comes to physical activity biological sex matters. And serving in the armed forces is primarily about physical activity and about physical bodies. So if you're a male and you're doing things to your body that decreases your combat readiness obviously that would disqualify you. If you're a female and you're taking medication that can have a negative impact on your physical and mental health obviously that would disqualify you. And certainly the armed forces should not be required to provide unnecessary, voluntarily medical treatments to anyone - especially ones that DECREASE combat readiness.

There's no need to ban anyone simply state that when it comes to military service you will be identified, housed, classified, etc according to your biological sex and if you have medical requirements or demands that negatively impact your combat readiness you're simply not fit to serve. Otherwise what you do, call yourself, etc out of uniform is your prerogative.

Still looking for the video, but I came across this in my twitter bookmarks, from a (female) US cop (now works in homocide/DV/sex abuse cases) who served in the US military:

"The main reason why trans people have no business in the military or in law enforcement is the prevalence of suicide attempts in gender dysphorics, but it’s not the only reason. Integrity is an essential part of both soldiering and police work.

Your buddies/colleagues have to be able to trust you with their lives, and no one who is willing to lie about such a basic and obvious fact as their own gender deserves that kind of trust.

It’s way more important for cops and soldiers to go home in one piece the end of the day than it is to pander to and placate a group of people who all seem to have the worst case of main character syndrome the world has ever seen."

If they are taking hormones, and therefore reliant on daily medication, surely they are making themselves ineligible for deployment anyway?

(FWIW... I have met a transgender Navy officer at an official event. They had an individual "gender neutral" toilet they could use and they wete not permitted to enter opposite facilities at the gym etc. They took extreme care to always meet dress standards. But it was like everyone fawned over to them to their face,but were unhappy with the situation away from them as they couldn't do everything. )

lol, no there are not female and male facilities out in the desert for example. Very much an adult and respectful approach to using the toilet, having a wash, having a period etc.

Use of language is much less of an issue when using rank, which is what is expected. They/them is used a lot when receiving an email from ‘Capt Bloggs’ for example as the rank does not indicate gender (obviously if it’s an email from someone you don’t know). If you do know someone, you would still generally use rank as a sign of respect and out of politeness.

There aren’t gendered fitness tests in the british army, they’re job specific. You want to be a chef? Great do the chef fitness tests. You want to be a mechanic? Great, do the REME fitness test.

It’s much less of a significant issue in my lived experience than this thread reads.

Has no idea just hyperbole, though some of the comments here are equally wrong. Whilst they do have gendered facilities in some parts of the military, actually many roles do not, my dd shares a mess (sleeping area) with men sometimes when she deploys, because she shares with others doing her role for practicality, and she doesn’t mind at all. Toilets and showers are unisex too. (Be glad you actually have them now!) the guys are all really respectful apparently

as for mess dress, women are already allowed to wear trousers if they want anyway, my dd chooses a skirt

There is no evidence that they were there in any sort of official representation capacity. Do you know otherwise?

Yes Pharazon that is what I thought. I agree, it was appropriate wear because they were there in representational capacity. Entirely appropriate.

My point is that he used it as a prop to make a political speech while there in an official representational capacity. Hence it was not appropriate to remove it as he did.

Col Sangster-Wall was there as a keynote speaker at a defence award ceremony so I don't quite see how wearing mess kit could be seen as a 'prop'. It was used in a rather silly stunt, and will probably result in a bollocking from the CO, but that's a separate issue. It was a completely proper place to wear mess kit and use rank.

Yes, I understand that. My point is though, was this person there in a representational capacity or were they not and were using the uniform, as an active serving member, as a prop?

Were they there as a speaker from the British Army speaking about LGBT issues? This is where I believe there could be a grey area.

Look, everyone is entitled to whatever opinion they like on the matter. I am not here to argue with strangers on the internet, I literally came here with some lived experience/knowledge that I feel makes the whole argument a little less inflammatory. And partially as reassurance that not all women in the armed forces are being subjected to X Y and Z. It’s backfired on me as it seems like I’m now something else for people to be aggy about, and some of the lines of questioning I am clearly not going to have the answers to. So I am going to check out of the thread now and you ladies have a nice day.

Unnecessarily dismissive about our chefs and mechanics tbh. I am not sure what part of job specific fitness tests isn’t clear to you? Look it up yourself. Same fitness tests to join the marines, SBS, SF. As it should be, not about gender but about ability to complete the job.

I’ve literally answered this in a previous comment.

It is actually actively encouraged to use personnel’s rank since it’s seen as earned. Report writing for example is upon the individuals preference whether theyd want their reporting officer to write gender or rank to avoid any unconscious (or conscious) bias at board. And obviously people do use pronouns, what I have maintained is that it’s much less of a big issue due to the regular use of rank.

Unnecessarily dismissive about our chefs and mechanics tbh. I am not sure what part of job specific fitness tests isn’t clear to you? Look it up yourself. Same fitness tests to join the marines, SBS, SF. As it should be, not about gender but about ability to complete the job.

I’ve literally answered this in a previous comment.

It is actually actively encouraged to use personnel’s rank since it’s seen as earned. Report writing for example is upon the individuals preference whether theyd want their reporting officer to write gender or rank to avoid any unconscious (or conscious) bias at board. And obviously people do use pronouns, what I have maintained is that it’s much less of a big issue due to the regular use of rank.

I was not referring to chefs and mechanics. If that is what your friends are doing, fine. But there are roles which have requirements that do have peak fitness standards higher than a chef. Can you please confirm that even there there is no difference at all in fitness assessment?

And you have then just jumped to 'deployment' as to temporary camp. I was not referring to those but to barracks or are you about to tell us there are no longer shared single sex accommodations for military personnel anywhere in the world that military personnel from the UK would be deployed to? Is that correct? That no where that UK military personnel will be deployed to will have shared single sex accommodations? Brilliant news!

Of course people will use pronouns for people, including in written correspondence and briefs. But are you saying that those using correct sex pronouns are not adversely impacted in anyway? That is great to hear.

Mess kit can be worn at any black tie event, whether or not you are there in an official capacity. It's completely normal to see officers (including retired ones) in mess kit at wedding receptions, formal dinners etc. As this was an award ceremony then mess kit would be appropriate for a serving officer.

(not condoning the stunt btw)

The pack weight in the Annual Fitness Test varies by arm, from 25kg for infantry to 15kg for REME, AGC etc. In deployment, you carry what you need to carry - might be more, might be less, and kit will be distributed around a unit as required. For example in an infantry section, you might have one soldier who is an absolute ox and will therefore take more gear, whereas smaller and lighter soldiers will carry less. Soldiers, particularly while on deployment, have a very large degree of autonomy in how they organise themselves and how they use, organise, and even customise their kit - this is one of the defining characteristics of the British Army.

I do not and have not served. However, I take a keen interest and follow a lot of things around UK military etc. As far as I am aware, now females can do front line work, they are held to the same standards and equipment as males. I know you are not at all saying this, but females don't get a smaller gun that weighs less, they are carrying an (approx) 5KG SA80 variant, and that's it, if you can't carry your pack you can't do the job.