User:Eastemc/sandbox

Sexual orientation and military service

Vincent, Carly, Adam, Scott, and Morgan

Summary of Assignment

I created two new additions to the article on Sexual Orientation and Military Service; History of Sexual Orientation in the Military and Arguments for including Openly LGBT people. I commented on hennings.iheid and Kraljsamsvijeta talk page. Our group also met several times and discussed the content of our articles through email frequently throughout the process.

Outline draft

Criticism of the article

We found a number of areas for critique and potential improvement within the existing article. Many of these would explain why this entry is listed as a “start” class article by Wikipedia. In the most formalistic sense, there are a number of sources missing, the map shown at the top of the page is out of date, some of the citations provided link to informal sources lacking authority and some of the entries are generally poorly written. Of the country entries, some are woefully incomplete and, as discussed on the talk page, some particularly striking country examples, such as Turkey, are missing altogether. More diligent editing, fact checking and source recovery is necessary to make this a more authoritative article.

As it presently exists, the article is a very brief introduction followed by a list of individual country entries of varying depth and quality. We feel that there needs to be more context provided to the issue beyond the simple list that is provided. The existing introduction is very brief and what information is included appears to be randomly selected. The “article” references the number of UN Security Council member states that ban LGBT people serving openly in the military, in addition to those with the same policy among NATO countries, without explaining the relevance of this information. In our view, without greater context it simply serves to privilege US and European policy. Similarly, the article suggests that allowing LGBT persons to serve openly is a form of sexual harassment policy without adequately citing or fully explaining such an association.

The language used in the article is problematic. The title of the article is “sexual orientation” whereas at different points it uses “homosexual,” “gay and lesbian,” “bisexual,” “nonheterosexual” and “gay people” seemingly indiscriminately. Most problematically of all is the consistent use of the term “gay people” throughout much of the article, even after beginning with such a variety of terms. We feel that there needs to be a conscious and consistent approach to the language taken to be as inclusive as possible of the vast array of non-heterosexual identities and activities that exist globally and does not contribute to the marginalization of women.

On a related but more profound level, the article does not address the exclusion of transgender people. While the title of the article centers the discussion on “sexual orientation,” we feel that the exclusion of transgender people without an overt explanation is problematic. While we are sensitive to the fact that the experience of transgender people around the world is likely worthy of its own separate entry, we feel that there is sufficient reason to believe this article would be incomplete without some recognition and inclusion of transgender people.

Our proposal

Considering that the current article is merely a list of countries with poorly researched explanations of policies concerning LGBT military personnel, we will split the discussion into two articles. The first will largely resemble the current article; it will be called “Sexual orientation and military service by country.” The second will be a revamped “Sexual orientation and military service” that will foster substantive, encyclopedic discussion on the issue itself.We will include the following sections that will constitute the new version of “Sexual orientation and military service.”

1. Proper introduction

The current introduction is nonsensical in its choice of states to highlight. Moreover, our planned overhaul of the article will require a new introduction reflecting the new content.

2. Trans section Given the title and topic of the article, i.e., sexual orientation, it will still be valuable to write about the phenomenon of trans people serving in the military. Trans individuals face distinct challenges and gender based violence that deserves mention.

3. Arguments for excluding people (also Military arguments)This section will articulate arguments as to why LGBT people should be excluded from military service. Topics may include concerns for unit cohesion and military readiness. This paragraph will contribute to the balance and neutrality of the article.

4. Arguments for including openly LGBT people (also Military arguments)Including openly LGBT people in military service may actually promote unit cohesion and readiness, contrary to other arguments. We will summarize such research here.

5. Effects on serving openly or closeted on individuals What does research suggest the effect of serving openly has on individuals versus serving closeted? This section will touch on the situation faced by LGBT persons, or those perceived to be so, in the military.

6. Violence faced by LGBT people in the military. Physical, sexual, and psychological violence is a fact of life for many LGBT identified persons. In an inherently violent environment, LGBT people may face violence unique to their community in the course of military service.

7. Discrimination faced by LGBT people in the military in militaries without explicit limitations This section will explore the question of legality versus practice. In militaries where LGBT people are allowed to serve openly, are there continued practical limitations to their service?

8. Meta list(simple lists organized by militaries that explicitly allow open LGBT people, explicitly ban LGBT people, or are ambiguous)This section will simplify the existing list of conditions by country. It will separate the militaries that explicitly allow LGBT personnel, militaries that explicitly bar LGBT people form serving, and militaries with ambiguous policies. There will be a “see also” link to the new “Sexual orientation and military service by country” page, and each state that has a specific page on its LGBT military personnel policy will also have a link to that page.

9. History This section will attempt to paint a broad picture of the history of sexual orientation as it relates to the military. It could include cursory examinations of ancient practices, as well as understandings of how the world’s militaries came to adopt policies regarding LGBT individuals. To improve the current “Sexual orientation and military service” article, we will change the name of the article to “Sexual orientation and military service by country.” We will add subsections to better organize the article.

The new subsections will be titled: "List of armed forces allowing LGB personnel to serve openly;" "List of armed forces without restrictive LGB legislation;" and “List of armed forces of countries explicitly banning LGB personnel.” Significant work must be undertaken to improve the language as well. There are currently wild inconsistencies in terminology. Finally, references need serious work. We will add references where available, or the “reference needed” tag where appropriate.

Suggestions for future expansions

Given the fairly limited nature of the article at present, we have identified a number of contributions and improvements that we feel would make for a more valuable and authoritative article. There are a number of future expansions that we suggest would be necessary to complete the article but that we do not anticipate being able to do within the scope of this project. We plan to suggest these improvements in the talk page to stimulate discussion and perhaps sew the seeds for future improvements. We feel that the page would be improved by providing a greater focus on the experience of women and transgendered men and women within each of the country entries. We do not propose to take on the labour-intensive task of updating the map but we strongly suggest that this work be done in the future. In addition, we do not intend to provide substantial reviews for each of the country areas or to create entries for all of the missing countries. However, this work is very important for a list such as the one in the existing page to be both comprehensive and authoritative.

As is evident from our proposal for the creation of a new entry on this topic, we see that there are a number of different subjects worthy of research and discussion that collectively provide context and an accurate framing of this issue. We are aware ofthe possibility that effectively addressing each of the headings we have highlighted above for the new article may prove to be beyond the scope of this project. Should that be the case, we will promote the remaining headings for further development in the talk page.

Finally, on a topic such as this,there will, at least for the foreseeable future, be a need for constant revision and updating. Similarly, we believe that the task of providing intersectional critique and attention is also ongoing and is necessary for every part of the two articles. It is both beyond the scope of this project and our collective expertise as editors to attempt to undertake this comprehensively, and we would encourage all future participants and editors of the pages to take up this challenge.

Other related articles on Wikipedia: • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_unions_and_military_policy This is an article directly linked to the article above. It is a stub class, a lot of improvement is needed • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_the_Canadian_military this is a start class • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell This is a B class • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_the_United_States_military

This is a start class

• The entire category of articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sexual_orientation_and_military_service • I am not sure if we can do this, but we might add a paragraph “Gender and the army” in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army Show how the army is gender constructed, the image of the viril man fighting, and the women caring in hospital. • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transgender_and_transsexual_military_personnel • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_military-related_organizations Here there is mostly American organizations, we could add others.

Interesting articles: http://www.unfriendlyfire.org/research/files/Moradi%20Military%20Psychology.pdf Sexual Orientation Disclosure, Concealment, Harassment, and Military Cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT Military Veterans2004 American Psychological Association Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Military Service and other recommendations of the APA Task Force on Sexual Orientation and Military Service. Adopted by the APA Council of Representatives July 28 & 30, 2004 Opinions Of Military Personnel On Sexual Minorities In The Military http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/dont_ask_dont_tell_isnt_working_survey_revea ls_shift_in_military_attitudes The Battles that Remain: Military Service and LGBT Equality (sept. 20, 2013) http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2013/09/20/74883/the-battles-thatremain-military-service-and-lgbt-equality/ MacCoun, R.J. (1996). Sexual orientation and military cohesion: A critical review of the evidence. In G.M. Herek, J.B. Jobe, & R. Carney (Eds.), Out in force: Sexual orientation and the military (pp. 157-176). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2013/02/07/homos-grands-muets-de-l-armee_880183 “Paradoxe: Alors que l’armée française n’a jamais connu d’interdit légal du type de celui qui sévissait en Grande-Bretagne jusqu’en 2000, ou aux Etats-Unis jusqu’en 2011, le climat y est aujourd’hui infiniment moins gay friendly que dans les forces armées britanniques ou américaines. » Turkish military http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/ce-certificat-rose-dispensant-les-homosexuelsturcs-de-service-militaire-28-03-2012-1445762_24.php First findings: Law VS Practice: In a RAND corporation report (1993) (with the National Defense Research Institute) entitled "Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment", “researchers visited Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. With the exception of the United Kingdom, all of these countries permit openly gay personnelto serve in some capacity in their Armed Forces. Several broad themes emerged from these visits, with potential implications for the situation facing the United States: • In countries that allow homosexuals to serve, the number of openly homosexual service members is small and is believed to represent only a minority of homosexuals actually serving. • Service members who acknowledged their homosexuality were appropriately circumspect in their behavior while in military situations; they did not call attention to themselves in ways that could make their service less pleasant or impede their careers. • Few problems caused by the presence of homosexual service members were reported. Problems that did arise were generally resolved satisfactorily on a case-by-case basis. If a problem developed to the point that a unit might become dysfunctional, action was taken to remove the individual (homosexual or heterosexual) from the unit. Source: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2009/RAND_MR323.sum. pdf Point of view of the military: How they rationalize their decision to ban gays, how they feel about allowing them to serve openly, etc… Caution: We should be unbiased and use statements from government sources. The same RAND corporation publication spoke of military leaders who have spoken publicly on the issue in recent months and argue that introduction of a known homosexual into a unit, no matter how discreet his or her behavior might be, would seriously undermine the cohesiveness of that unit. The literature also indicates the following: • If some members of a unit cannot accept the presence of an acknowledged homosexual, the result will probably involve some degree of ostracism of the homosexual, rather than a complete breakdown of the unit. Whether this occurs will depend partly on the conduct, competence, and loyalty of the homosexual individual in question. • Some heterosexuals might refuse to cooperate with known homosexuals. However, many factors will help to promote cohesion and performance even in the face of hostility toward homosexuals. First, research suggests that leaders play an important role in promoting and maintaining unit cohesion. Second, military roles, regulations, and norms all enhance the likelihood that heterosexuals will work cooperatively with homosexuals. Third, external threats enhance cohesion, provided that the group members are mutually threatened and there is the possibility that cooperative group action can eliminate the danger.

---

History of Sexual Orientation in the Military

Throughout history, there have been several cultures which have looked favorably on homosexual behavior in the military. Perhaps the most well-known example is found in ancient Greece and Rome. Homosexual behavior was encouraged among soldiers because it was thought to increase unit cohesiveness, morale and bravery. The Sacred Band of Thebes was a military unit from 378 BCE which consisted of male lovers who were known for their effectiveness in battle. Same-sex love was also prevalent among the Samurai class in Japan and was practiced between an adult and a younger apprentice.

However, homosexual behavior has been considered a criminal offense according to civilian and military law in most countries throughout history. There are various accounts of trials and executions of members of the Knights Templar in the 14th Century and British sailors during the Napoleonic wars for homosexuality. Official bans on gays serving in the military first surfaced in the early 20th century. The U.S. introduced a ban in a revision of the Articles of War of 1916 and the UK first prohibited homosexuality in the Army and Air Force Acts in 1955. To regulate homosexuality in the U.S. military, physical exams and interviews were used to spot men with effeminate characteristics during recruitment. Many soldiers accused of homosexual behavior were discharged for being "sexual psychopaths", although, the number of discharges greatly decreased during war-time efforts.

The rationale for excluding gays and lesbians from serving in the military is often rooted in cultural norms and values and changed overtime. Originally, it was believed that gays were not physically able to serve effectively. The pervading argument during the 20th century focused more on military effectiveness. And finally, more recent justifications include the potential for conflict between heterosexual and homosexual servicemembers and possible “heterosexual resentment and hostility.”

Many countries have since revised these policies and allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military (e.g. Israel in 1993 and the UK in 2000). There are currently 26 countries which allow gays and lesbians to serve and around 10 more countries that don't outwardly prohibit them from serving.

The U.S. is one of the last more developed nations to overturn its ban on allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military when it repealed the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in 2010.

Arguments for including openly LGBT people

Until recently, many countries banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces. The reasons to enforce this ban included the potential negative impact on unit cohesion and privacy concerns. However, many studies commissioned to examine the effects on the military found that little evidence existed to support the discriminatory policy. Moreover, when the bans were repealed in several countries including the UK, Canada, and Australia, no large scale issues arose as a result.

In fact, several studies provide evidence that allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the armed forces can result in more positive work related outcomes. Firstly, discharging trained military personnel for their sexual orientation is costly and results in loss of talent. The total cost for such discharges in the U.S for violating the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy amounted to more than 290 million dollars. Secondly, privacy for service members has actually increased in countries with inclusive policies and led to a decrease in harassment. Although, it is important to note that many gays and lesbians do not disclose their sexual orientation once the ban is repealed. Finally, allowing gays to openly serve ends decades of discrimination in the military and can lead to a more highly-qualified pool of recruits. For instance, the British military reduced its unfilled position gap by more than half after allowing gays to openly serve. Therefore, more evidence exists now to support policies that allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military.

Gay Warriors: A Documentary History from the Ancient World to the Present (review) David J. Ulbrich