Contentious Issues

BLUF: No Army or DOD regulation currently requires the use of gendered titles or pronouns, despite tradition.  A Soldier (by my estimation) can be reasonably accommodated in their sincerely held beliefs about the restricted use of language to reflect biology without any breach of Army Protocol, and without being disrespectful.

Recommended COA to CDRs:

1.       Do not abandon tradition, or necessarily institute sweeping changes.  If a unit has no objection to the use of sir/ma'am, allow its use. 

2.       No Soldier should be prevented or penalized for using the explicit regulatory rank/name method of addressing individuals. 

3.       In places where unity is desired (e.g. training schools or ROTC), if any Service Member objects to traditional or Organizational means of address, regulation supported rank/name protocol should always be the default.

Regulatory Review

1. DODI 1300.28 In-Service Transition For Transgender Service Members

             "b. All Service members must be treated with dignity and respect. No person, solely on the basis of his or her gender identity, will be: (1) Involuntarily separated or discharged from the Military Services; (2) Denied reenlistment or continuation of service in the Military Services; or (3) Subjected to adverse action or mistreatment."

Note that pronouns are not explicitly addressed, but "Except where an exception to policy (ETP) has been granted transgender Service members will be subject to the same standards as all other Service members. When a standard, requirement, or policy depends on whether the individual is male or female (e.g., medical fitness for duty; physical fitness and body fat standards; berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities; and uniform and grooming standards), all Service members will be subject to the standard, requirement, or policy associated with their gender marker in DEERS."

This implicitly includes gender specific customs and courtesies (See the Following)

2.  AR 600-25, Salutes, Honors, and Courtesy, 2019

             "The junior person shall salute first. Accompanying the rendering of the hand salute with an appropriate greeting such as, 'Good Morning, Sir' or 'Good Morning, Ma’am' is encouraged. Personnel will not salute indoors, except when reporting to a superior officer."

             My non-legal interpretation of this regulation is that no specified greeting, including gender specific titles, is required.  Note that there is no other language in this regulation which includes gendered language.  DA PAM 600-25 has no discovered bearing on the subject.

3. TC 7-21.13 Soldier’s Guide, 2015

             The old FM version of this regulation specified manners of addressing superior officers with a sir/ma'am.  The New TC does not.  The only references to gender are affirmations of the need for dignity and respect, such as found in the EO section, and there is no stated protocol on treating men and women differently in any regard, including titles.

4. AR 600-20 Army Command Policy, 2020

Table 1-1 gives a "Title of Address" for each rank.  The only gendered titles are for Warrant Officers and Cadets.  Warrant 1 only allows Mr./Mrs., with subsequent warrant ranks allowing the title "chief."  Cadets ranks all allow the address of cadet in addition to gendered titles.  There is no guidance on when these titles are to be used.

5. TC 3-21.5, Drill and Ceremony, 2021

             The use of sir or ma’am is herein required, in the context of Drill and Ceremony.  Generally speaking, however, someone who objects to said language for religious reasons need only allow another to fill the spot (at the front of the formation) during ceremony.  There is no obligation for any Soldier to by virtue of service participate in leading a ceremony.

6. Joint Considerations

Air Force Instruction 1-1, 1.8.5 "Military personnel are addressed by their grade or title... Officers are addressed by their grade name or "sir" or ma'am.  AFI 34-1201, 2017 contains similar instructions.

Marine Corps Order 5060.20 , 2019 contains many uses of gendered titles in the same manner as TC 3-21.5, but note a 2022 Pittsburg University’s Warrior Human Performance Research Center study recommending the abandonment of the use of Sir/Ma'am (albeit for much different reasons than I suggest).

BLUF: Current regulation requires that a Service Member who has "changed genders" be allowed access to the facilities of that gender.  There is no policy loop hole.  My advice is to follow the Mt 16:10 rule.  Liberal use of unit transfers, neutral facilities, and other protections that are within the commander's power should be sought.  If all else fails 1 Peter must be applied, and resignation of command/service tendered before compromise of morality.

AR 350-1 requires more training days annually than there are days annually.'  It is thus an impossible task.  USR is a subjective/semi-subjective report in which there is pressure on commanders to report themselves as 100% Trained and ready to fight tonight, regardless of reality.  You cannot impact others' expectations, only your own actions.

The answer here is simple.  Do not lie.  Pluck up the courage and then submit to the punishment necessary (even to the point of losing command and ultimately your career), but do not lie.  Easier said than done, but do it anyway.