Recently, Wolf Blitzer brought up the issue of Homosexuals in the military during the Democratic Presidential Debate. I have a couple thoughts on what I deem to be a common-sense compromise. Right now there are two major camps on the issue: 1) If a member of the military is found to be homosexual, they should be discharged, and 2) Homosexuals should be protected from being dismissed or discharged based on their sexual preference. I think there is a third option that resides somewhere in between.
First off, I'm not real keen on forcing politically correct attitudes on anybody. If someone is racist, they own a local general store, and they don't want to hire ethnic minorities, then I really don't see why the government has the authority to say, "You have to hire minorities." I think that the government, however, should run under different rules. I don't think it would be appropriate for a government employee to refuse employment to someone based on race.
Secondly, while I think that race is inconsequential when it comes to employment, I think that sex and gender CAN be consequential. We live in a society that separates the two sexes. Men and women, boys and girls, are separated to some degree in every realm of our society. I think that this is appropriate. I think it's appropriate that we use separate restrooms, I think it's appropriate that there are Boy Scout Troops and Girl Scout Troops, I think it's appropriate that men foster male friendships, and women foster female friendships. This is the reality in which we live, and I don't believe it needs to be changed.
Third, homosexuality confuses the gender distinctions. As many of you know, there is a difference between sex and gender. Sex refers to anatomy, and gender refers to the values and behaviors that are associated with the sexes. For instance, some clothing is considered male, and some clothing is considered female. Clothing is a part of our gender identities and has nothing to do with sex, per se. Sexual attraction is a HUGE part of gender identity as well, and that gender identity is simple: men are attracted to women, and women are attracted to men. That is why I say that the issues surrounding homosexuality are gender issues. It's not an issue of what group a person is affiliated with like race or religion.
There are many occasions where separating the sexes is appropriate, and I believe that at those occasions it is also appropriate to separate along gender lines as well. Two examples, it's not appropriate to separate an office into "male" and "female", so there are no issues incorporating homosexuals into a normal secular workplace. A locker room however, is a place where the sexes are separated, and here we will find society baulk at the idea of homosexual men showering with heterosexual men. This scenario doesn't conform along gender lines, so accommodations need to be made. The normal accommodations are a) homosexuals don't announce that they are homosexuals, b) individual showers are installed, or c) when the individual is known to be a homosexual they may be given time to shower privately (think of a football team where everyone in the locker room knows every other person). Regardless of whether accommodations were successful or not, it is understood that the division of the sexes did not successfully divide the genders as well, and that accommodations were necessary.
When it comes to the military, I think that it is appropriate for there to be some occasions where division between the sexes and genders is necessary (barracks and showers, for instance). Can this separation be acheived and homosexuals also be accommodated? I think so, but I don't think that we can legislate it. There are places in the armed forces where the sexes are not separated, there is no reason for homosexuals to be excluded from those arenas. In situations where the sexes are separated, I think it should be at the discretion of the commanding officer whether accommodations can be successfully implemented. I don't think that a person should be discharged from the armed services because of sexual preference, but I think it's appropriate that a CO be able to assess whether a homosexual can be assimilated into a unit, and if they can not, that CO should have the authority to reassign that individual. I don't think that homosexuality should mean automatic reassignment or dismissal, but I also don't think that a CO should have to wait until there is a documented problem for him or her to make appropriate reassignments. Combat units, especially, depend on group cohesion, and a singular gender identity is a critical part of that group cohesion. If a CO deemed that group cohesion was being threatened by an individual member of the team, they should have the right to reassign that person, regardless of what the reason is, even if that reason is regarding an individuals sexual preference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Here is a comment for you: before you start judging people with thinly veiled bigotry, you might INVESTIGATE an issue in totality. Transsexualism is grounded in science. You would know this, if you spent more time on legitimate inquiry rather than publishing prejudicial statements without unsubstantiated facts. You are probably a racist, and therefore worthy of pity. . I write at Suite 101. Type in my name if you want the facts. April Rose Schneider
I had a good friend who recently died of brain cancer. She was in the AF for like 14 years. Knew a dozen launguages and helped to tear down the Russian nukes.
But when she came out as female it was assumed she was gay. and out she went.
Now her cancer was caused by that work in Russia, yet the VA would not help her because of her type of discharge. It ruined her family financially. And she could not get Insurance after she had cancer.
Transsexuality is more than a preferance. If I were to be born with four arms or two heads to be concidered a birth abnormal. It is simply a vanished twin. two sets of cells that merged at some point in the womb. People who are left handed used to stigmatized. So the brain can also be reversed or multi sexed. Before the determination of XX or XY of the cells. All fetuses start female.
Screw up the timing and you have a mixed body. While I am intersexed, a medical condition I am discriminated agains as mews people in general have no idea of what goes on. They parrot what is told to them, It has not always been this way, No one in South east asia questioned my gender.
Why should anyone else.
Rev Pauline Overby
As I left the service after 4 years I do get medical help at the VA.
First, I wasn't writing about (or thinking about) transexuality, which is a similar issue, but not altogether the same issue. So, I will not say that everything I said concerning the issue of homosexuals in the military also applies to transexuals in the military.
Second, I did not use the term "preference" to imply that homosexual behavior is a choice, rather than an innate condition. The term "sexual preference" is an observation of behavior. Homosexuals prefer partners of the same sex. This is a true statement, regardless of whether the preference is a choice, or whether it is part of an innate condition caused by genetics. I suppose the alternative to saying "sexual preference" would be "sexual orientation", but "orientation" implies (to me) that the cause of the behavior is innate. I do not know whether the behavior is innate, or chosen, or encouraged by environment, or some combination of all three, so it would be presumptious of me to use the term "orientation".
April,
I find it interesting that you think I am a bigot and a racist. What I am suggesting is to make the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" more liberal to protect homosexuals from being discharged if they decide to "Tell", which they can be under the current policy. However, I am trying to accomodate our society's values and the needs of the military at the same time. I encourage you to respond, but I request that you be a bit more specific as to what you object to in my post. I'm open to criticism. What I'm trying to accomplish here is a workable compromise that is not being discussed in the media.
Rev Pauline Overby,
I think you're friend's situation is absolutely atrocious, which is one of the reasons why I think the current, "Don't ask, don't tell" policy does not provide a solution for the issue of homosexuals in the military. I am a bit confused as to what your friend's exact circumstances were, but I think I get the general idea. I do not think your friend should have been discharged. I also think that your friend should have been protected from being discharged. However, I also understand that such a revelation may be difficult for certain military units to handle. This is why I think that a CO should have the ability to reassign that person to some other position. I do not think that the Air Force should have the right to discharge your friend on the grounds that she is a transexual.
As it turns out, I never used the term preferance at all, and I don't believe that I ever implied that it was merely a choice. I wouldn't make an implication because I don't believe that it's merely a choice. While I stand by what I said before regarding using the verbage "preference" instead of "orientation" (or some other terminology that gives more weight toward genetic causes), I don't see what the origins of homosexuality have to do with how we integrate homosexuality into our culture.
In case there was any confusion; I think that homosexuals in the military should be more protected than they are, but I do not think we have to turn our culture upside down to do so.
Post a Comment