Gender Identity in the Canadian Forces

• Published date: 01 April 2015
• Author: Alan Okros,Denise Scott
• Date: 01 April 2015
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X14535371
• Subject Matter: Special Section: Transgender Issues in the Military

Special Section Article
Armed Forces & Society
2015, Vol. 41(2) 243-256
Gender Identity in
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
the Canadian Forces:
DOI: 10.1177/0095327X14535371
afs.sagepub.com
A Review of Possible
Impacts on Operational
Effectiveness
Alan Okros1 and Denise Scott2
Editor’s note: This is the third of three articles in this issue on transgender issues
in the military.
Abstract
One of the most prominent debates over minority participation in the military has
been whether or not inclusive policies would undermine operational effectiveness.
While the adoption of inclusive policy has tended to indicate that minority partici-
pation does not compromise effectiveness, the question has not yet been tested in
the context of transgender military service. In this paper, we conduct the first-ever
assessment of whether policies that allow transgender troops to serve openly have
undermined effectiveness, and we ask this question in the context of the Canadian
Forces (CF), which lifted its transgender ban in 1992 and then adopted more
explicitly inclusive policy in 2010 and 2012. Although transgender military service in
Canada poses a particularly hard test for the proposition that minority inclusion
does not undermine organizational performance, our finding is that despite ongoing
prejudice and incomplete policy formulation and implementation, allowing trans-
gender personnel to serve openly has not harmed the CF’s effectiveness.
Keywords
Canadian Forces, transgender, diversity, don’t ask, don’t tell, DADT, operational
effectiveness, readiness
1 Canadian Forces College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2 University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Alan Okros, Canadian Forces College, 215 Yonge Blvd, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5M 3H9.
Email: okros@rmc.ca

---

244
Armed Forces & Society 41(2)
Introduction
One of the most prominent aspects of debates over the presence of women, members
from distinct ethnicities, or gays and lesbians in the military has been whether or not
minority inclusion would undermine operational effectiveness.1 While the adoption
of inclusive policy has tended to indicate that minority participation does not com-
promise effectiveness, the question has not yet been tested in the context of transgen-
der military service, as limited scholarly research has been conducted on this issue.2
In this article, we conduct the first-ever exploratory assessment of whether policies
that allow transgender troops to serve openly appear to have undermined effective-
ness, and we ask this question in the context of the Canadian Forces (CF), which
lifted its transgender ban in 1992 and then adopted more explicitly inclusive policy
in 2010 and 2012.
Transgender military service in Canada poses a particularly hard test for the
proposition that minority inclusion does not undermine effectiveness. As with
other research examining the effects of changes in military personnel or social
policies on effectiveness, the impacts are most often inferred rather than demon-
strated through controlled, empirical studies.3 Further, in this context, prejudice
against transgender individuals remains prevalent among Canadian civilians and
service members and, as we show subsequently, while inclusive policies have
been formulated, implementation has been incomplete.4 Nonetheless, if the avail-
able evidence from this exploratory study does not reveal that transgender inclu-
sion compromises effectiveness despite instances of intolerance as well as
indications of poor formulation and implementation of policies, this would
affirm the feasibility of allowing transgender troops to serve in other organiza-
tions whose host societies are more tolerant and whose policies are enacted with
more care. Despite ongoing prejudice and weaknesses in the crafting and execu-
tion of policy, we did not identify any evidence indicating that allowing transgen-
der individuals to serve openly has harmed the operational effectiveness of
the CF.
Policy History
In examining issues related to transgender individuals, it is important to note that sex
refers to the categories of male and female as determined by biological characteris-
tics, while gender is a person’s own understanding of themselves as male or female
(or both or neither). A person’s gender identity is displayed through his or her gen-
der expression or presentation and can include, but is not limited to, behaviors,
clothing and hairstyles, voice, and emphasis or de-emphasis of bodily characteris-
tics. Thus, gender conformity occurs when one presents their gender in a manner
consistent with the social expectations for males and females while gender non-
conformity occurs when gender presentation is not consistent with the dominant
social expectations.

---

Okros and Scott
245
Although the CF has not used survey research or administered a census to deter-
mine the number of transgender service members, scholars estimate that in the
United States, transgender citizens are approximately twice as likely as non-
transgender Americans to serve in the military.5 To the extent that these trends char-
acterize Canadian society, we estimate that the active component of the CF includes
approximately 265 transgender personnel. In 2011, the CF’s Surgeon General
reported that approximately one service member undergoes surgical procedures to
change genders each year, and this estimate is somewhat consistent with the data
from the United States.6 While some service members may transition to their
acquired gender via cross-sex hormone therapy rather than surgery, the vast majority
of transgender service members in the CF are either pre-transition or post-transition.
And as a result, commanders only rarely must address the question of how to manage
personnel undergoing transition, and this article does not go into great depth about
transitional administrative or medical issues.7
Despite the small number of transgender personnel, gender nonconformity has
been the subject of a range of regulations spanning the last several decades. After
the 1985 enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the CF con-
ducted a comprehensive regulatory review and made a number of changes to com-
ply with new requirements. One policy that the CF revised was CF Administrative
Order (CFAO) 19-20, ‘‘Homosexuality–Sexual Abnormality Investigation, Medical
Examination and Disposal,’’ which stated that ‘‘service policy does not allow homo-
sexual members or members with a sexual abnormality to be retained in the Canadian
Forces.’’ Although not explicitly included in this order, gender nonconformity often
was conflated with sexual orientation at the time, and some transgender individuals
were subsequently identified as ‘‘members with a sexual abnormality’’ and released
from the CF or denied enrollment.8
In 1988 and again in 1992, the CF issued new regulations to reduce and then
remove all discrimination based on sexual orientation with, again, an implied link
to gender nonconformity. The replacement CFAO (19-36) defined sexual miscon-
duct as ‘‘an act which has a sexual purpose or is of a sexual or indecent nature and
which . . . constitutes an offence under the Criminal Code or the Code of Service
Discipline’’ but did not include any explicit reference to gender nonconformity.
It was not until 1998 that the CF first recognized that the question of transgender
military service required attention. Following internal reviews, the CF amended its
medical policies in 1998 to recognize sex reassignment surgery (SRS) as an appro-
priate treatment for gender identity disorder and to include it as a covered medical
procedure.
In 2010, as part of a comprehensive updating of the policy manual on the man-
agement of personnel information, the CF articulated specific guidance related to
transgender individuals with direction for changing an individual’s legal name, pro-
viding clothing consistent with the target gender, clarifying relevant military phys-
ical fitness standards, and updating personnel documents, records, identity cards,
and passports. The revised policy required commanders to promote ‘‘utmost privacy

---

246
Armed Forces & Society 41(2)
and respect,’’ but stated that previous records, awards, and honors will not be
reissued under a new name.9
Finally, in February 2012, the CF issued Military Personnel Instruction 01/11,
‘‘Management of CF Transsexual Members.’’ Under the new policy, the CF must con-
sider accommodating the needs of transgender service members who undergo transi-
tion, but not if doing so would ‘‘constitute undue hardship’’ or ‘‘cause the CF member
not to meet, or to not be capable of meeting’’ standards that apply to other service
members. The instruction obliges commanding officers to work with transgender ser-
vice members, supervisors, and medical authorities to develop suitable plans for units
and requires...