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

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.forcesnews.com/lgbtq/exclusive-british-army-colonel-claims-transgender-personnel-are-unlikely-be-able-serve-beyond

Curious others thoughts on this.

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.

I am inclined to think this would be sensible. For many people who claim special identities, especially those who are activists, validating their identity is like an addiction which gradually takes over and warps all their interactions with other people. It's not about you, Colonel. We're talking about the defence of the realm. Serious stuff. Fellow soldiers and subordinates are under enough stress without having to think about pronouns. There is enough sexual harassment and abuse of women in the armed forces without putting men in women's facilities or sleeping quarters.

Removal of mess dress - reasons given are baffling - it looks like exhibitionism to me.

And as for this...
"But in the same way that there was no evidence to justify the ban on LGBT+ volunteers in the 50s and 60s..."
Nah. Homosexuals were banned. L and G. The T+ wasn't born nor thought of.

Edited for clarity

“Removal of mess dress - reasons given are baffling - it looks like exhibitionism to me.”

Yes. Particularly if the person was also there representing the military.

Either the UK military will be ensuring the SC ruling applies to living and working conditions on base and on deployment which they should have been doing in any case or this person is aiming to have a political activist career and will be soon retiring.

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.

There are reasons for them being banned from the military. Reasons that have nothing to do with transphobia or discrimination. Medical reasons, the time they need to dilate (which they need to do for at least an hour each day, etc. Not just taking hormones. When they're in active war, they can't do those things. They have the same rules regarding other medical conditions, too. It's not discrimination, it's about balancing medical conditions against a fit active participant abiding by a schedule and abandoning everything and getting into the trenches. I saw a very good US video by someone military explaining it and how those with medical conditions, including hormone using and/or post surgical aren't for or conducive to active duty. If I find it I'll post it.

Perhaps, as Provost General, (ie usually the most senior officer concerned with ‘policing’ within the Army), he could concentrate less on his activism and rather more on things like driving down sexual assaults and rape within the Army.

Or getting to grips with the bullying of recruits (look up Deepcut if you want examples). You know - what he’s actually employed to do.

And nothing shouts professionalism more than stripping down to a sports vest in that situation. I wonder why he’s not had the bump to Brigadier yet… 🧐

Imagine what would happen if a woman colonel stripped to her underwear in order to deliver a speech? The idea of wearing mufti evidently didn't occur to him.

This is just another example of a trans extremist trying to coerce his workplace to meet his personal niche demands of access to women's spaces. As others have said, given the awful record the Army has of sexual bullying and harassment of women soldiers, removing all single sex protections is mad.

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."

Sorry double post.

I mean, can you imagine you're in your bunk dilating and the Sergeant yells 'Wilson! What are you doing back here! Get your ass out there NOW!!' at you that you're needed in the trenches and you yell back,
"sorry sir, I've got a dildo up my neo-c*nt and I need half an hour longer or will close up" what sort of reception that would get in the middle of an active war zone?

Yeah.

Just think about it.

They are not being 'banned' from the military here though. And from memory, they are not 'banned' from the militarily in the USA.

In the USA, they are expected to act in accordance with their sex and to not have medically transitioned requiring a lifetime of medical treatment when the military requires its personnel to meet the standards of health for their sex and to be ready for deployment. This is the same requirement as any other military personnel.

https://archive.ph/4zC91

Here is the relevant EO.

So, why were they in military dress to start with? It is not a costume to be worn to an event where the person was not representing the military.

WandaSiri. :
Removal of mess dress - reasons given are baffling - it looks like exhibitionism to me.

I assume its so he can not be charged under the Regs of an offence of doing X (political statements etc.) while on duty or without permission from a senior officer?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6
And new learning for today the use of a uniform can be subject to a public order offence.🤷‍♀️

But.....

He did a " she got her tits out " strip in public at a professional fourm with a boob tube not a T-shirt while making the point that he is making a non-official private personal statement.

How many ( senior or not) women would or could choose a boob tube style protest to make a personal statement about their professional career in the armed forces??

https://centreformilitaryjustice.org.uk/guide/sexual-violence-and-sexual-harassment-in-the-armed-forces/

https://news.sky.com/story/army-women-reveal-abuse-as-former-minister-admits-colossal-failure-13325673

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.

No one is discriminating. Trans people are perfectly welcome to serve they will just be required to use the facilities corresponding to their sex. The only problem I can see is those who have had surgery recentlyor are taking hormones not being allowed in frontline roles.

The Armed Forces are not held to employment laws in the same way companies etc are. There are multiple situations where there are not single sex spaces available. Most accommodation is self contained so bedroom and own bathroom/toilet. There are multiple trans colleagues I have and continue to work with who are well liked, well respected and brilliant at their job. It’s very interesting to read the opinions on here, I am guessing most haven’t served.

This is the thing

The outcry about the EA was usually from people who have no idea about what military requirements are for employment and did not read the EA at all. They just read all the biased media reporting.

Then there comes the issue of whether serving personnel and civilian staff are expected to using the demanded language of someone else and what the consequences are for those refusing or making an error.

Frankly, having a military police officer in a position where they might have a significant power advantage that can be misused is concerning.

The Colonel is just being dramatic like all the male athletes who say they've been "banned" from sport because they can't compete in the women's category any more. Everything has to be on their terms or they are being erased. Their trans identity is a religion that other people have to perform, even when the trans person isn't present. If others do not comply, the trans person has nothing.

I recognise that just as in sport, there are some trans people who just get on with it in the right category, but I still suspect that the reasons people claim a trans identity as well as the fact of claiming it would disqualify them from membership on mental health grounds as well as sometimes on physical grounds.

ETA: Sort of cross-posted with Helleofabore

So, on deployment there is single accommodation available at all times? On ships? On exercise? On active service out of the country?

And do your trans colleagues demand and expect to have their language demands accepted?

Are your colleagues recognised as the sex they are or the sex they want to be recognised as? Could you please confirm what physical fitness requirements are they assessed by when they are tested? The sex they are or the sex they say they are?

So, if that’s the case for junior ranks as well as commissioned and non-commissioned officers (it’s certainly not in training) in the Army, what threat to their (trans-IDd personnel) careers do you think this guy’s referencing?!

If we ignore what’s happening in the States, as I don’t see how it would directly impact UKLF, then the ‘threat’ (I would assume) is the recent SC ruling. If single sex spaces are not something that the Army needs to worry about, as you assert, what’s the issue he’s highlighting?

As I said before, bloody hyperbole.

Physical fitness requirements are the same for males or females, interestingly (and rightly) so it doesn't matter.

New ships, have male and female messes (sleeping quarters) but by new, I mean the ones being built now, not the ones the Royal Navy has. It's quite the feature of new Dreadnaught class missile subs to have separate female sleeping areas and the subs are being built in a warehouse in Scotland right now.

Training at joining is separated by sex, active personal are not.

I suppose the only important thing is - Can you do the job asked of you - and if you cannot, for physical or mental health reasons, you will be discharged or put in a position where it does not affect carrying out your duty.

Well you guessed wrong in my case. And I think you’ll find it’s only in very extenuating circumstances that mixed sex sleeping and bathing spaces are used. Normal barracks are still sex segregated. I’m sure your trans friends are lovely. (Everyone’s trans friends are always lovely) but they still have to follow the law.

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.