A History of Transgender and Gender Dysphoria Persons in the U.S. Military The history of transgender individuals and those experiencing gender dysphoria in the U.S. military has varied in periods of exclusion, evolving policies, legal challenges, and eventual inclusion efforts. The regulatory framework surrounding transgender military service has shifted based on changing presidential administrations, military directives, and judicial rulings.

Early Exclusion and Policies (Pre-2010s)

Historically, transgender individuals were barred from military service under regulations that classified gender dysphoria and related conditions as disqualifying medical conditions. Under Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 6130.03 (Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction into the Military Services)[1], those diagnosed with “psychosexual conditions” such as gender identity disorder were deemed unfit for service. Additionally, DoD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) and DoD Directive 1332.30 (Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned Officers) allowed for the discharge of service members who exhibited gender nonconformity or sought medical transition procedures. These regulations aligned with the broader stigmatization of LGBTQ+ individuals in military service, exemplified by the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy of 1993, which specifically targeted lesbian, gay, and bisexual personnel but indirectly reinforced the exclusion of transgender individuals.

Obama-Era Reforms and Open Service (2015–2017)

A significant shift occurred under the administration of President Barack Obama. In 2015, then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced a review of policies banning transgender military service. Following a study period, in 2016, the DoD lifted the ban on open transgender military service through DoD Instruction 1300.28 (In-Service Transition for Transgender Service Members), allowing transgender individuals to serve openly and receive medical care related to transition. The revised policy permitted transgender individuals to enlist and remain in service if they were stable in their gender identity for at least 18 months.[2] The instruction also provided access to hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries through military healthcare systems. This progressive stance marked the first official recognition of transgender service members in U.S. military history.

Trump Administration Ban and Legal Challenges (2017–2021)

In 2017, President Donald Trump announced via Twitter that transgender individuals would no longer be permitted to serve in the military “in any capacity.” [3] This announcement led to the 2018 DoD policy, which barred most transgender individuals from enlisting unless they served in their birth gender and did not seek medical transition. The policy faced immediate legal challenges, including Doe v. Trump (2017), Karnoski v. Trump (2017), Stockman v. Trump (2017), and Stone v. Trump (2017). Lower courts issued injunctions blocking the ban, citing potential equal protection violations under the Fifth Amendment. However, in 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the ban to go into effect while litigation continued, and the Department of Defense implemented new restrictions. Under the revised 2019 DoD policy, transgender individuals could only serve if they had not undergone transition. Those already serving under the 2016 policy were permitted to remain, but recruits faced stringent medical restrictions.

Biden Administration and Policy Reinstatement (2021–Present)

Upon taking office in 2021, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14004 (Enabling All Qualified Americans to Serve Their Country in Uniform)[4], directing the DoD to reinstate inclusive policies for transgender military service. The DoD repealed the 2019 restrictions and restored DoD Instruction 1300.28, allowing transgender individuals to enlist and transition while serving. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reaffirmed that gender identity should not be a barrier to service. The updated policies ensured access to military healthcare for gender-affirming treatments and reinforced protections against discrimination.

Current Legal and Policy Landscape

As of 2024, transgender service members can openly serve and receive necessary medical care. However, the future of transgender military service remains subject to potential political changes and legal challenges. The courts have generally ruled in favor of inclusion, citing equal protection guarantees and military readiness arguments. However, the possibility of shifts in administration or congressional policy underscores the need for continued engagement and awareness of these rights.

Conclusion

The history of transgender and gender dysphoric persons in the U.S. military is a testament to the resilience and determination of these individuals. From facing outright bans to engaging in legal battles and eventually witnessing policy reversals, transgender service members have consistently fought for the right to serve openly. While current policies support inclusion, the issue remains politically contentious, and future developments may continue to shape the landscape of transgender military service.

References

• DoD Instruction 6130.03 (Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction into the Military Services)
• DoD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations)
• DoD Directive 1332.30 (Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned Officers)
• DoD Instruction 1300.28 (In-Service Transition for Transgender Service Members)
• Executive Order 14004 (2021)
• Doe v. Trump, 275 F. Supp. 3d 167 (D.D.C. 2017)
• Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2019)
• Stone v. Trump, 356 F. Supp. 3d 505 (D. Md. 2019)
• Stockman v. Trump, 331 F. Supp. 3d 990 (C.D. Cal. 2018)

Notes:

[1] Beard, D. L. (2021). “Bad Paper”. https://core.ac.uk/download/477653621.pdf

[2] Pentagon Lifts Ban on Transgender Troops Serving in the U.S. Military. https://www.mic.com/articles/147560/pentagon-lifts-ban-on-transgender-troops-serving-in-the-u-s-military

[3] Lauren Willson – The Rocky Mountain Collegian. https://collegian.com/author/lauren-willson/

[4] Hillman, R. (2024). THE BATTLE OVER BOSTOCK: DUELING PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS & THE NEED FOR CONSISTENT AND RELIABLE LGBT1 RIGHTS. The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 32(1), 1-99.

[5] Gross, S. (2017). A Mystery Wrapped in an Encryption: Surveillance and Privacy in the Encrypted Era. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 15(1), 73-92.

[6] Mark Knopfler Shares the Inspirational Story Behind “Symphony of Heroes” – DireStraits. https://direstraitsblog.com/blog/mark-knopfler-shares-inspirational-story-behind-symphony-of-heroes/

[7] Berrios, K. L. (2021). CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LOCAL HEALTH CONDITIONS AND MILITARY ACCESSIONS. https://core.ac.uk/download/427424314.pdf

Soldiers are dangerously starving themselves, gobbling diet pills and laxatives — even going under the knife in costly liposuction surgery — all to meet the Army’s weight standards and avoid losing their careers.

In this case, we are asked, following remand, whether an honorable discharge, effective after this court’s affirming a sentence that included a bad-conduct discharge, has the effect of remitting that discharge. We hold appellant’s administrative discharge was voidable, properly voided, and did not remit appellant’s premature discharge.

This was a rather odd situation because the appellant was an active duty Soldier and it was the Reserve command giving him the discharge. ACCA found that the Commander, HRC-StLouis had no authority to discharge appellant.

The commander, HRC-St. Louis exceeded his authority under AR 135-178 to order appellant’s discharge. Therefore, appellant’s 29 December 2009 discharge was, at a minimum, voidable and was properly voided on 12 March 2010. As an active duty soldier under a sentence to an unsuspended bad-conduct discharge, appellant could “not be discharged before appellate review is completed, unless so directed by [Headquarters, Department of the Army].” United States v. Estrada, 69 M.J. 45, 47 n.1 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (citing Army Regulation 635-200, Personnel Separations: Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations, para 1-22.d (6 June 2005) (emphasis in original)). At the time of appellant’s voidable discharge, the court’s 5 October 2009 decision was pending review before the C.A.A.F.. Accordingly, appellate review was not completed. UCMJ art. 67. See also UCMJ art. 76.

Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore, commander of the Thirteenth Coast Guard District, has relieved Capt. Fredrick G. Myer from his duties as commander of U.S. Coast Guard Sector Portland, Ore., Friday, citing alleged misconduct due to a violation of military regulations, specifically unauthorized use of a government computer. Specifically, Capt. Myer was found, during an investigation, to have repeatedly viewed pornographic and other restricted internet sites on a government computer.

The Advocate reports that:

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is calling on the secretary of the Navy to discharge a soldier with a “less than honorable” status and reduced retirement pay after an internal investigation concluded the sailor had, in fact, abused a subordinate sailor using antigay and homophobic hazing.

Military.com reports that:

Canada’s appellate court has ruled a U.S. Army deserter’s beliefs must be taken into account in deciding whether to deport him back to the United States.

The AP A sprawling financial scandal at the Naval Academy — involving extravagant parties and a “slush fund” — was an embarrassment that helped lead to an early exit for the school’s superintendent, Navy Times has learned. Vice Adm. Jeffrey Fowler faced “administrative action” in April as a result of a year-long Naval Inspector General’s investigation, said Rear Adm. Denny Moynihan, the Navy’s top spokesman.

No. 10-0468/AR. U.S. v. Sonya M. WATSON. CCA 20080175. Review granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT APPELLANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE WAS VOIDABLE AND PROPERLY REVOKED AND DID NOT REMIT THE ADJUDGED DISMISSAL. Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

An Army specialist who refused deployment to Afghanistan because no one was available to care for her infant son in her absence has agreed to leave the military instead of facing a court-martial, service officials said. As part of the agreement 21-year-old Spc. Alexis Hutchinson will be stripped of her rank and become ineligible for future military or veterans benefits, according to a release from Army Forces Command. [T]he Army Forces Command disputed [her] version of events. “The investigation revealed evidence, from both other Soldiers and from Private Hutchinson herself, that she didn’t intend to deploy to Afghanistan with her unit and deliberately sought ways out of the deployment,” the release said. Hutchinson admitted to lying about the circumstances, officials said.

Stars & Stripes reports.