Talk:Sexual orientation in the United States military

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual orientation in the United States military article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Military history / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Culture / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

I wonder if LGBT history in the U.S. military would be more helpful. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 07:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it. I thought using policy was a little odd myself, but I went with it after seeing the Canada article. Ruodyssey (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "T" in "LGBT" under the article

The use of the "T" in LGBT in this article seems to indicate that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (and by extension, its repeal) applies to transgendered individuals serving in the USAF. This is misleading; trans individuals would still be excluded under things like the Uniform Code of Military Justice: http://transequality.org/Issues/military.html

I suggest either removing the "T" in all instances of LGBT in this article or linking to an article that explains the special discrimination that trans people face in military service. Adding a separate section explaining the status of trans people in the USAF might not be the best idea, since this article is about sexual orientation and not gender identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.120.234 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women dressing as men

There is no source to connect women dressing as men to fight in the Civil War with sexual orientation. They cross-dressed to fight, not as an expression of sexuality. The WP:BURDEN rests on whoever wants to connect them. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DADT enacted or established

DADT was not enacted into law. Much of it was, but the entire "Don't ask" part was not. That part was included in DOD directives. I will be making that clear in my updating of the DADT entry, which I'm working on. The whole enactment/initiation of the policy is not dealt with very well in the DADT entry, especially compared to the great length with which we cover the lifting of the policy. But even now the DADT entry says:

Congress included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[33] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993,[34] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.

(There were actually a bunch of directives.) So it's clear that it took two actions to get DADT into place. It was partly enacted and partly established by military directives which could be withdrawn at any time because they were not legislated. That's one of the reasons hard-line critics of DADT who wanted to return to open inquiries about sexual orientation were mad at George W. Bush for not simply withdrawing the directives and going back to asking the sexual orientation question outright, which he could have done.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out

RE: the policy commonly referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) which allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve as long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation. (emphasis added)

What do we mean by "reveal"? The military forced out someone whose emails were intercepted through some inadvertence on the part of a member of the military. It wasn't just a question of reveal in the sense of "coming out". It was as long as the military did not find out they were gay/lesbian whether through self revelation or any other evidence, as long as the military authorities did not acquire the evidence by direct questioning. Maybe it's "reveal or allow their sexual orientation to become known", but even that use of "allow" is too strong, I'd say. Maybe "as long as the military did not learn of their sexual orientation." This is in the summary after all. The body of the entry can handle more verbose treatments. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some phrase with "were identified or self-identified" ? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (now rescinded by order of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010"), a soldier was only discharged if they engaged in homosexual conduct. Quoting the relevant (Army specific) passage: "Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Army under the criteria set forth in paragraph 15-3. This includes preservice, prior service, or current service homosexual conduct." It then explains that "Homosexual conduct is engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts; a statement by the Soldier that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect; or marriage or attempted marriage to a person known to be of the same biological sex." - Sudo Ghost 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pritzker Military Museum & Library Holdings

Please feel free to use Pritzker Military Museum & Library's holdings when editing this article. PMML is a Wikipedia GLAM institution and as such wants to facilitate use of the Museum & Library's content use in Wikipedia. In particular, the Dr. Charles C. Moskos Collection would be useful to raising this article's quality. TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Entry on Healthcare Needs and Provisions for Gays and Lesbians in the Military

Here is the URL of my draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QCommunity1/sandbox#Healthcare_Needs_and_Provisions_of_Gays_and_Lesbians_in_the_Military QCommunity1 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for the future

I'm trying to find some reference to what the US Military (mandated by the Government of course) plans to do to accommodate the expansion of gender identity. Currently between 51 and 63 depending on your source. Has anyone who's been working on this page perhaps encountered anything? 128.250.4.115 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Transgender missing from this LGBT article?

As its title suggests, the article is about sexual orientation. Transgender is excluded because it's a matter of gender identity not sexual orientation. Accordingly, I've added a prominent link to Transgender personnel in the United States military at the top of this page. The latter article covers the subject in depth. KalHolmann (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits needs to be updated to post DOMA changes

As DOMA was declared unconstutional by the supreme court this section is now out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.148.231 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]