Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Turkey: Trans man actor called up for military service

  • gary

    well this is what he wanted , equality , if its the law of the land then i can certainly see the point in this !

    • David Bishop

      It isn’t equality though, becasuse women are not required to serve, nor gay men etc.

  • RoughRugger

    Why SHOULDN’T he be required to serve?

    • anon

      Because conscription is slavery, and conscientious objection is enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights?

      • kane

        he still can object

        • anon

          Except the part where he can’t because Turkey doesn’t recognise conscientious objection.

          • RoughRugger

            He can object all he wants. He simply can’t use that objection as an excuse to avoid his legally required service.

          • anon

            If you can’t object without being punished then you can’t in fact object. You don’t have that right.

          • kane

            in uk some people go to prison for refusing to pay tv licence just to make the stand, what that say about this guy?

          • anon

            Sorry, that analogy isn’t relevant.
            Not paying your TV licence isn’t protected “freedom of thought, conscience, or religion”.

          • anon

            To put it another way, there is a moral choice available.
            There is always the option to not pay AND not watch TV.

            With forced military service there may not be a moral choice available. Doing military service is a violation of their conscience, yet they are being strong-armed by the state with threats of imprisonment or worse.

          • kane

            you missed the point

          • kane

            analogy is irrelevant here, but recognising that sometimes what you truly believe in might require sacrifice is

          • RoughRugger

            I can object to my boss requiring me to answer my emails…it doesn’t mean I don’t have to answer them. A lawyer can object to every word out of his opposition’s mouth…those objections can be overruled. When the draft was in place here in the US, people could certainly object…and that objection could be either affirmed or denied. Just because your objection may or may not get you the result you want doesn’t mean that you did not object.

            …and again, nothing in the UDHR guarantees anyone the right to avoid laws they object to, so whether you want to split hairs & say this guy does or does not have the ability to “object” based on whether the objection gets him out of service isn’t really relevant to the question at hand anyway. The law of the country he lives in requires his service and does not recognize conscientious objection as a valid reason for exemption from that service, and there’s no overriding authority that would require that recognition.

          • Mario

            So in your argument, your for a state to use aggression to get what it wants from an individual regardless of their beliefs or objections?

          • RoughRugger

            1) I’m for citizens of a country (especially democracies/republics) being required to follow that country’s laws, lacking an overriding, justifiable reason to do otherwise. Nothing I’ve read in the few articles I’ve seen about this guy would indicate he has a rationale for conscientious objection, just that he doesn’t want to or doesn’t feel that he’s suitable. That’s the entire reason for my initial comment in this thread.

            2) A government has to have the ability to enforce laws. There are sects that believe that paying taxes to a secular government is wrong. Should a government not have any means to compel citizens to follow laws requiring the payment of those taxes?

            3) *you’re. (If you’re going to nitpick & put words in my mouth, at least use proper grammar.)

          • Mario

            All you’re points (except for the third) point towards a particular argument.

            1) We would all suggest that our bodies are ours. Therefore any use of force is in itself a use of aggression against an individual of a group.

            2) If you DO NOT think that peoples bodies are their own to do with what they may, then you therefore support the use of force.

            All people of the world would say that their body is for their own to use. Therefore we can safely say that point 1 is true and that everyone has the right for liberty.

            Therefore, in this case, it would be wrong to force the boy to do service correct?

          • anon

            Sovereignty is vested in people, not in the state.
            There is a good reason why western democracies have moved away from conscription towards a completely voluntary military.

      • RoughRugger

        Required service/conscription is not the same thing as slavery and I think you’d be hard pressed to find many that hold that stance. No one is being bought or sold, service is for a limited period of time, and I would assume that conscripts are paid for their service. Too, there is nothing in the UDHR guaranteeing anyone anyone the right to avoid the laws of their land based on conscientious objection…such a thing would be ludicrous & an invitation to chaos.

        This guy wanted to be physically and legally a male, and went through the steps to become so. In his country the law says men are required to serve, absent specified reasons for exemption. Nothing in this article mentions any reason for conscientious objection anyway; it just implies that he either doesn’t WANT to serve, or doesn’t think he’s “suitable” for service due to the number of operations he’s undergone. I still don’t see any reason why he should expect to not have to serve unless Turkey does consider his transitioning to be a medically acceptable excuse.

        • anon

          Adding “The Right to Refuse to Kill” would be “ludicrous & an invitation to chaos”?

          … chaos?

          I’m glad I don’t live in derkaderkastan where you’re clearly from.

      • de Villiers

        I did military service in France. As did everyone else.

        • anon

          Good for you.
          So long as people can legally object it’s not a problem.

          • de Villiers

            It was good for everyone. I can see in your posts the ultra individualism of Anglo Saxonism.

          • anon

            You don’t get to decide what’s good for everyone though.

    • kane

      indeed

    • Mario

      Because we are not slaves? And it’s asserting aggression against an individual?

      • anon

        Apparently you’re my fellow ultra individualist Anglo Saxon :D

        • Mario

          Well no. Im actually a British born Turk so I know all about this issue :)

          • anon

            Is it viewed as just another civic duty, or is there some resentment?

          • Mario

            From most of the young men in Turkey there is a lot of resentment. There are many cases of men running away and becoming illegals in other countries, breaking their own limbs as well as making claims such as not mentally fit and so on. It’s a travesty really. It’s about STATE CONTROL nothing else.

          • anon

            Thanks for sharing the info.

            Even if there wasn’t that resentment, I’d still argue for the rights of the individual.

          • Mario

            Yeah Defo :)

          • anon

            Well that’s what de Villiers (French) called me below, rather than how I see myself.
            I guess people in continental Europe are far more civic-minded.

          • Mario

            I noticed when I looked below lol. I don’t think it’s because of civic-minded ness, because Turkey is quite a patriotic country. I just think it’s more of feeling forced whereas in the UK it’s a choice so people are more blasé about entering if you get what I mean. I think people no matter where you go have this idea about doing good for your country. Then they grow up and realise the state only cares for itself.

  • lohtar

    I am against military service and I am against the idea that men should be called to serve and women not. However, if it is the law of the land as it currently is it does mean he is legally fully recognised as male and from that perspective it is a victory.

    It does make me worry for his safety as he’s out as transgender and depending on whether or not he had fully reconstructive surgery (I’m guessing they have group showers and such) that may cause problems for him as well.

    In other news: He’s rather hot. Hope the army won’t spoil him.

    • Aleksis Niskanen-Costa

      Exactly… I fully agree with you on this. It’s the same here in Finland as in Turkey as in males are FORCED to serve and females not. Why the hell not? Where is the equality here? If women can vote and have all the Rights and Freedoms as males do, how come they do not have the same Duties?! Completely Undemocratic, sexist and descriminatory… I do feel Really strongly about this and even have a couple of friends who chose to serve the time in jail instead of the forced on military that we have in here. Disgusting how because I have a penis and not a vagina I somehow must be punished by the state I pay taxes to.

      • lohtar

        I am originally from The Netherlands and it used to be the same there (though people are no longer forced to serve, I got lucky or would indeed have done jail time or so).

        Though I struggle with it, there is some argument to make that men are generally physically stronger and therefore supposed to serve where women are not. However, even if one finds that a valid argument, women can still be called to do a whole other range of things.

        That’s the one thing you gotta hand to Israel: everybody serves in the military, gender completely irrelevant.

        • Palto

          Nah I don’t buy that blanket statement about men being stronger than women. There are many women who are much stronger than men. Let their asses get shot at on the front lines along with the guys. Equality, right?

          • Aleksis Niskanen-Costa

            Absolutely… I mean this is not even like separate but equal, it is just unequal. If they want to continue to use ancient steriotips of what it means to be a man and a woman but still give women the right to vote (and all the other Rights equally) at least they could FORCE women to serve that time in camps learning how to clean, cook, please your man, do your make-up and take care of children. But in reality Finnish 18 year old girls spend their time doing their hair, maybe making some part-time job earning real money for partying and traveling and gossiping while guys born with penises have to learn how to kill people and have idiots yelling at you just because or do other jobs called civil service for absolute no pay and you don’t even have a say on it because you have a penis and not a vagina. After you do your time you go back to the real world and there is no reward, you still have only as many Rights as people with vaginas have. Sorry if i sound bitter about this (which probably i am) and I’m an all supporter of women’s rights but there is no fairness in this.

        • Aleksis Niskanen-Costa

          Yeah… at least Israel is fair on this one.

    • Rumbelow

      Facially he looks strangely like top female model Cara Delavigne, I think special arrangements need to be implemented in his case as far as military service goes, whatever wish him all the best anyway.

  • Charlie

    All men are required to we’ve except gay men! What’s that about?

  • Darule Vozhak

    I’m not quite sure what the issue is here, he is now physiologically a male and recognized as a male by the state it seems and thus is asked to obey the laws of the laws of the land that cis gender males are asked to obey. Seems like a small victory to me. I don’t support conscription at all, but I don’t understand what’s the problem here.

    • anon

      Gay people shouldn’t be allowed to serve however, because it’s the law of the land.

      And gay people should be freely discriminated against, because it’s the law of the land.

      And in Saudi Arabia men who engage in sex with men should be executed, because it’s the law of the land.

      • Silly Old Bastard

        I see trans people as the walking wounded, if you take into account the necessary surgery. They should not serve.

        • kane

          perhaps you should invest in a monocle to enhance your vision

          • Silly Old Bastard

            I see very well, better than most. Can you say that?

          • kane

            oh well i suppose we will have to take your word for it

          • Silly Old Bastard

            I’ve become quite sympathetic to trans people. That means I am not at all happy for them to be used by extremists.

          • kane

            in what way?

          • bawb

            You’ll not get any sense out of him. He’s a few sheep short of an orgy.

          • Silly Old Bastard

            Haven’t trans suffered enough than to be called into the army so that gay extremists can crow about ‘equality’ being served?

          • bawb

            That was surprisingly lucid for you.

          • kane

            such compassion

        • Rumbelow

          You should have left your comment at “I see trans people”
          It would have been witty and amusing then instead of gratuitously nasty.

          • Silly Old Bastard

            We’re trying to keep him this side of the army, and need to build as strong as possible case for him. You wouldn’t make much of a defence lawyer.

  • Silly Old Bastard

    This ‘equality’ will most probably be hell for him, but what does that matter to the purists posting here.

    • bawb

      I can’t believe I agree with something you posted.
      It’s like the abyss is gazing back into me.

  • kane

    ‘…A homosexual man must ‘prove’ he is gay and is required to take several controversial tests, deemed ‘humiliating and degrading’ by Human Rights Watch…’

    same rules apply when you claim asylum in uk

  • Cal

    Some here have said his draft seems like a victory. I tend to agree. If he’s legally a man then he has to comply with the law regarding males.

  • Peace-loving gay pagan

    Forced conscription to the forces is a massive human rights violation. When there is no World War occurring, there is no justification for it at all, and even in that situation it should still be voluntary. A government that puts its military power above it’s human rights is obviously weak and afraid, and using scare tactics to try and fend off invasion, rather than trying to live in peaceful co-existence with other nations. Turkey has no hope of being part of the EU whilst it persists in pushing all it’s young men into potential wars.

    • Rehan

      I believe Denmark, Austria and Greece still maintain national service and they’re EU nations, so that argument would be unfair to say the least.

  • Sim Morris

    Disgraceful article – the writer needs to be sacked.
    The headline reads:
    “Trans man actor called up for military service ”
    The last sentence reads: “Finally a committee gives you ‘He is not suitable for military service’ report,” he said. “How can we be suitable for military service when we have undergone a series of operations?”
    Which is it.
    Typical shoddy churnalism from this website.

  • Marty Kane

    Why are gays exempt ? They mustn’t want gay guys in the army.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all