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.
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
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:
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies/Gender and International Affairs (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
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. Student editor(s): Natalie10319.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): P.salas95. Peer reviewers: Cappiahkubi.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlin.stewart.
I rearranged this section and put the quote in a quotebox. Previously, it had a tendentious tone and didn't have a clear distinction between quotes and facts. Furthermore, it didn't properly credit the source of its quote. This is all fixed.bwmcmaste (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they decide to refuse to grant the stay, then DADT can no longer be enforced for the time being (again), and not only should the article be changed to reflect this, but the U.S. should be turned BLUE on the map. It was not turned blue during the last window when openly gay soldiers could serve openly. 216.165.11.77 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the countries of the world stances of Homosexual men and women joining up the police force, do they have laws banning gay men and women from the police in countries where homosexuality is accepted? Can someone construct a map showing the enlistment policies of the police based on sexually orientation and the countries where it is just illegal anyway marked in red anyway? Can someone construct a map on the legal history of the police forces around the world? Are there any countries where only gay men are forbidden buy lesbians are permitted to join the military or police force? Are there any countries where gay people are banned from both the police and army?
How do the Italian, Litzburgish etc armies find out of someone is gay?
Er why would they want to find out if someone is gay. Since both the Italian and Luxembourg (I guess that's what you meant) armies allow homosexuals to openly server, I don't think there is any reason why they would want or care about whether or not people are homosexual or heterosexual. Incidentally, the Italian army apparently allows female to serve so it isn't just gay men but lesbian women Nil Einne12:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember seeing a documentary on British TV a while back that was about bieng gay. There was one part where they had the host plugged into a machine that measured the indications of arrousal while he was watching both hetrosexual and non-hetrosexual pornography. The background given on the machine was that it was originaly developed to combat draft dodgers in the United States who claimed falsely to be gay. I do seem to remember it also bieng said that the machine had also been used in the past to find out whether an active serviceman was gay. I'm sorry for the lack of sources, I had a very very brisk look for them, but I'm afraid I'll have to leave that up to somebody else to do. Hope it goes some way towards answering this question though. (Scaeme (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The documentary you refer to is "The Making of Me" featuring John Barrowman, though I think that it's hardly common for that technique to be used as a screener or some such to identify homosexuals. More likely, in countries that care investigations are based on personal admission, incidences of conduct, etc. (as in America). CrashCart9 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The turkish military, for example, bans gays from serving. Often, however, a man's admission to being gay is not enough; instead he would be forced to provide photographic proof. Interestingly, the military considers only the passive sex partner to be homosexual.--DVD-junkie | talk | 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have to realize that Turkey has universal military service for all young men. So pretending to be gay would be a way of getting out of military service. Weatherford (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The that crys
If they only consider the passive guy to be a homosexual then why is he in a relation with the masculine guy? What if BOTH the men are masculine and butch? This is typical of homophobic ideologies. The idea that a man can only be gay if he is feminine, bitchy, slutty or camp is very common. The homophobic sympathisers refuse to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a masculine homosexual. There is an organisation called the G0Y movement, gay spelt with a zero instead of an A. They believe that, men should behave masculine whether they are gay or not. G0y is a movement for the “alpha” male homosexual. Sexually behaviour by these men shunned anal sex as they believe it is not masculine or natural. They do not call each other bitch, Queen or girl and totally refuse to be stigmatised by the conceptions of the wider gay community. G0Y is a group for gay and bisexual males who feel misrepresented by the world and refuse to conform to the public’s stereotypes and conception of gay men. Many G0Y men are very butch and many like to build up and do combat sports.
Turkey is a largely Muslim country, but is one of the minority where generally homosexuality is not illegal, though may be subject to discrimination under other laws such as their equivalent of the former USA arm policy Don’t ask Don’t tell. You can always contact the equality commission for further information or write a letter to stone wall if you need any more detailed information on these subjects.
Religious homophobia haze spanned for centuries, in some cases being categorised as a mental illness. Equality for homosexuals haze taken much longer than other minorities rights in general. Women got the vote almost 30 years prior to homosexuality being de criminalised in the UK around 1966-69. A lot of countries refuse to acknowledge that women could be homosexuals, consequently there have been far fewer laws forbidding lesbian activity due to the common belief it did not exist.
You have to realize that Turkey has universal military service for all young men. So pretending to be gay would be a way of getting out of military service. Weatherford (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though there haze been a lot of hypocrisy by a lot of countries and religions, some outlaw homosexuality, especial amongst the male community and will have virtually no age of consent. Some places it haze been as low as 9 and possibly even younger, yet homosexuality is considered a crime, even punishable by death, sometime the women face no charges due to their complete refusal to accept they exist.
I was just about to comment on that. In the meantime, I changed it to
In Russia, those alleged to have "sexual identity problems" are to be drafted only during wartime. "Well adjusted gays" are permitted to serve in a normal capacity.
It now sounds from the intro that this policy is somewhat similar to that of Singapore national service Gay rights in Singapore where effimate gays are considered different from non-effimate gays and have different restrictions (although in the Russian case it appears non-effimate gays are okay). Interestingly enough, in both cases being an effimate heterosexual man doesn't appear to be such a problem Nil Einne12:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Countries that allow homosexual people to serve openly"
The section should be renamed since in some countries (e.g. Czech Republic) it simply doesn't matter and it may not explicitly mentioned in laws or regulations. Pavel Vozenilek03:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is listed in the non-discrimatory list. However, the Irish have a historic policy of prosecuting gays and although no-one has been prosocuted recently, no offical policy statement in favour of LGBT participation has been issued. Maybe Ireland fits better under dont ask, don't tell?
Well the Department of Defence isn't precluded from anti-discrimination legislation, and I don't see any sources to suggest what you're saying (whereas I do see some saying what the article does) so unless you get a source... (preferable one with State legislation quote's or similar)
Links to sources of info about LGBTs serving in the military of each country
That's the longest subject I have ever written! But I think that this article would be even better if there were sources for each country's policy, and better yet if there were also links to personal stories/anecdotes about LGBTs who have served or are serving now. I realize that personal stories and anecdotes are stretching the purview of an encyclopedia; however if you think about it, such stories are indeed relevant to the topic. Perhaps in order to avoid too much NPOV controversy such stories and anecdotes could be listed in a section like "External Links"?
And on a related tangential note: Many of us LGBTs use things like Wikipedia in order to find out about other LGBTs in the world, to break through our isolation and to find out what is happening with people like us in other countries and in our own countries. I know that sexual orientation is a divisive topic, and in fact there have been talk page edit wars between people seeking to remove references to homosexuality from an article and people wishing to keep such references in (I am thinking about the Vladimir Horowitz article, for example). Maybe some wise admin could start a discussion somewhere about this (sorry if they already have and I didn't know)... I don't want to be divisive, but at the same time I don't want to submit to what seems to me to be unfair and NPOV bias against LGBTs. Dveej07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the United States' history section is a straight copy and paste from the "Don't ask, don'ttell article. Freddie4207:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest removing the US section and replacing it with a section of recent changes in policys and on-going debates which can then link to other countires more detailed histories.Matchrthom19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and removed the section. As people have said, it's a duplication from the Don't ask don't tell article which has been here since April 2006 but is clearly unnecessary in this article. There might be some merit for a tiny section on the current changes & debates but no more then one paragraph Nil Einne12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The beginning of the article states that China does not allow homosexuals to serve openly, but it is not mentioned for the rest of the article--neither in the "ban" section nor the "Other policies" section. Can anyone provide more information?
Thanks for making the map, but at the moment it doesn't reflect the true situation, since many countries coloured blue actually do not accept gay people in the military. For one, there are some countries which we do not know the policy of - these should be coloured grey. Secondly, there are countries, in Africa and the Middle East, in which homosexuality is illegal. Some of these are currently coloured blue, but they should be coloured red. I will make this change when I can. Ronline✉12:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that the map is inaccurate, at least effort was put into making one. It's a lot of research, thanks for making it. Ageofe (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version of the map. However it is merely a recreation of the old map, but now in SVG format - I've made no attempt as of yet to increase its accuracy, as I believe some issues need to be resolved first. Here are the issues as I see them:
The list in the article is under-referenced - there are only citations for 5 countries with bans.
Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, countries vary hugely in their openness - the list will likely never be a fully accurate reflection of the situation as a consequence.
The legend currently has blue for all countries that do not explicitly forbid homosexuality in the military - however this includes (correctly) countries such as Iran, where it would be redundant to ban homosexuals from the military as it is outright illegal anyway. I believe grouping together such countries with those that condone homosexuality is somewhat misleading.
I propose the following-
First and foremost the article needs to be improved. References for each country with an explicit ban on homosexuality in the military are needed. Until that has been done, it may be better to remove the map from the article, leaving it on the talk page only. Once the article contains good, reliable information the map can be updated. I suggest the following legend -
Red - countries openly barring homosexuals from military service (eg. Brazil).
Magenta - countries with anti-homosexuality laws not limited to the military (eg. Iran).
Orange - countries with ambiguous policies (eg. USA).
Blue - countries that do not openly bar homosexuals from military service. (eg. France)
Perhaps a disclaimer indicating that the list and map can not be fully comprehensive?
This page would benefit extremely much from a map. As it is now, the list is way to cumbersome – most entries are just copies of the same sentence. Perhaps we could create a "List of armed forces allowing LGB to serve openly" or "List of armed forces without restrictive LGB legislation", and a shorter section here could describe in more general terms how sexual orientation and military service intersect in different geopolitical regions.
@AJCham2097, that does seem like a good set of categories. Maybe nations with different policies for MSM and WSW should have categories of their own – or does ambiguos suffice? Axel Löfving (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Military's Ban Against Homosexuals Should Remain"
The aforementioned link leads to a personal web blog authored by a college student. While a dissenting view point would be a positive contribution to the
article, I think a more scholarly source is needed. Um'kay?
This map is very inaccurate, all the courtiers in Africa are marked in blue, when actual almost all the countries in Africa it is a criminal offence to be a homosexual me and half of those women too. They should be inked in red as they may not specifically ban homosexuals, this is because it is already illegal and anyone found out to be gay faces death, tortured and almost certainly goal. Any homosexual; soldier is going to be sacked anyway due to the fact they will go to prison anyway, no need to bar them when it’s already illegal. They should be in the red. Greece is another one that should be in red, and Japan should be in Blue because almost certainly a country as liberal as them would not have such legislation in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilian knowledge (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any countries where homosexuals are not banned from the military or by general law but are given remedial tasks and face discrimination and have no rights, E.G a hate crime committed against them is not considered punishable and sacking someone based on their sexuality is generally accepted even though not official part of legislation? Are there any countries where they teach lies about homosexuals being disabled and diseased as part of their official stance on it? Are there countries where you CAN join the military but are barred from further climbing the ladder EG being banned from the special operations teams or from becoming officers or military police forces? Does the repeal of DADT mean that gays can join the Navy Seals now or is that still off limits to them? There should be a more detailed bap rather that one that simply shows whether or not you can join wit ought showing cultural influences, other restrictions and public feeling. Are gay people permitted in the SAS? What countries have a higher age of consent for homosexual relations as straight ones?
One thing I noticed to be missing from this article is how the militaries, that discriminate against non-hetrosexual personel, attempt to rationalise thier descions. I know that some nations may hold a large religeous, or otherwise prejudiced, population that would object towards any sort equality, however I do wonder if any nations attempt to give any other reasons. Perhaps as a political screen in an attempt to disguise thier predjudices from more open minded countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaeme (talk • contribs) 15:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting, but if it were added it would need to be with an unbiased point of view, using statements from government sources. We couldn't just say "so and so country attempts to justify their wrongful predjuce with this-" Ageofe (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines and Argentine governments have officially ended their bans on gays in the military.
http://www.365gay.com/news/philippines-ends-ban-on-gays-in-military/—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgigs12 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Brazil is a country that apparently does not have many laws against homosexuals, but the national feeling is on of ferment detesting against homosexuals. Many have been murdered and driven out their homes for doing nothing wrong but let someone find out they are gay. The Brazilian army may not directly bar homosexuals from joining up but they will almost certainly be made to feel as an unwelcome outsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilian knowledge (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is taken from the first paragraph in the article:
"Russia excludes all gays and lesbians during peacetime but allows some gay men to serve in wartime "
This is a quote taken from "Countries with other policies":
"In Russia, those alleged to have "sexual identity problems" are to be drafted only during wartime. "Well adjusted homosexuals" are permitted to serve in a normal capacity."
I'm not that good in english but I'm pretty sure that contradicts the first paragraph.
The section on Denmark is probably completely made up. There is not and has never been a Danish general by the name of Kristian Andersen [1]. The draft hasn't been complete in many, many years - if ever service has been mandatory, it's not been in recent centuries. Even in my year (long before the end of The Cold War) only 1 in 6 got drafted. "Stephen Arynczuk" is not even remotely a Danish name (the first name would be spelled "Steffen") and a Google search reveals the name only in connection with the quote given here - even when searching only for the last name - making it highly unlikely that the person exists. Openly gay officers and servicemen is something that has passed me by completely and I know a fair number of servicemen, all of whom openly disparage homosexuals. This country is not quite as beautiful as the dreams some have about us... ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.91.114.210 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Britain isn’t the only U.S. ally to allow open gays in the military. More than 25 of our allies, including every original NATO signatory other than the U.S. and Turkey, have transitioned to an open military.
Why replace Turkey with Greece?
Also the Greek law of 2002 (http://www.omhroi.gr/images/sections/SI.pdf) did not bar homosexuals from the army. It merely gave a way out for people who claimed they had or would have deep psychological issues from having to be drafted. In the last decade that has seen the rise of professional soldiers (EPOP) in Greece there has been no single incident of a homosexual being fired for being homosexual. Because there is no law to support it. The newer law of 2005 (http://www.dsanet.gr/Epikairothta/Nomothesia/n3421_05.htm) has even changed the mildly offensive wording and now only mentions proof of psychological problems from mental health institutions. I am going to add Greece to the countries that accept gays and remove the false map until someone can fix it. Simanos (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be retitled. There is valuable information on transgender people serving in militaries that does not have an appropriate article anywhere else. While many debate the appropriateness of including gender identity in discussions on sexual orientation, the ubiquity with which they are used together merits the inclusion of transgenderism in this article. Hennings.iheid (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been updated to reflect that for the time being, the United States may not enforce "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by order of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and thus allow openly gay people in the military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.134.228 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Army Times considers it permanently suspended, it looks like, although there's still some caveat until the repeal is official. Designate (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real discussion of the topic itself in this entire article; it's just a country-by-country listing of policies, with some discussion of those policies for countries that have had notable histories with regard to this issue. I would expect this article to contain some actual substantive, encyclopedic discussion of the issue itself (e.g., basis for excluding or not excluding people from service, underlying philosophical ideas, history of the topic generally, and so forth). A very small amount of general information can be inferred from the individual sub-sections, but, of course, it's mostly applicable only to one particular country. (Before anyone says, "Be bold! Go ahead and add information and improve the article," let me say that I have little to no expertise on this subject or resources at hand. I'm appealing to what I would think would be a large group of people who have interest in AND expertise about this topic.) Holy (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Venezuela, laws against gays in the military do not need to be in a constitution, so you would need a source.
It looks like you have a source for Guyana, so I think that can be removed from the list. The same is probably true for South Korea. - MrX11:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the poll result with only the information I was able to find about it - the number, when it came out - but if we have a source for its being organized by Stonewall (and it doesn't subsequently turn out that it was badly conducted or anything) then we can add that too. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sexual orientation and military service's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡17:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like sexual orientation, policies regulating the service of transgender military personnel vary greatly by country. According to OutServe, a US-based advocacy organization for LGBT military service members, ten countries openly allow transgender military service members. They are: Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.[1]
While the US' military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was rescinded in 2011 allowing open service by gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members, transgender people are still barred from entering the US Military.[2] This ban is effective via enlistment health screening regulations: "Current or history of psychosexual conditions (302), including but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias."[3] Unlike the nascent Don't Ask, Don't Tell, this policy is not a law mandated by Congress, but an internal military policy. Despite this, studies suggest that the propensity of trans individuals to serve in the US military is as much as twice that as cisgendered individuals. In the Harvard Kennedy School's 2013 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, 20% of transgender respondents reported having served in the armed forces, compared with 10% of cisgender respondents.[4][5]
American transgender veterans face institutional hardships, including the provision of medical care while in the armed services and after discharge stemming from their gender identity or expression. Transgender veterans may also face additional challenges, such as facing a higher rate of homelessness and home foreclosure, higher rates of losing jobs often directly stemming from their trans identity, and high rates of not being hired for specific jobs because of their gender identity.[6][7]
In the United States, despite policy changes allowing for open LGBQ military service and the provision of some benefits to same-sex military couples, cultures of homophobia and discrimination persist.[1] For example, the US 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains language some are concerned permit individuals to continue discriminating against LGB soldiers.[2]
Several academics have written on the effects on employees in non-military contexts concealing their sexual orientation in the workplace. Writers on military psychology have linked this work to the experiences of LGBQ military service personnel, asserting that these studies offer insights into the lives of open LGBQ soldiers and those who conceal their orientation.[3] Sexual orientation concealment and sexual orientation linked harassment are stressors for LGBT individuals that lead to negative experiences and deleterious job-related outcomes. Specifically, non-open LGBT persons are found to experience social isolation.[4][3] In particular these products of work related stress can effect military job performance, due to the high reliance on connection and support for the well-being of all service members.[3][5][6][7]
In the United States LGBQ soldiers are not required to disclose their sexual orientation, suggesting that some LGBQ service members may continue to conceal their sexual orientation. [8] Studies suggest this could have harmful effects for the individual. A 2013 study conducted at the University of Montana found that non-open LGB US veterans face significantly higher rates of depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and alcohol or other substance abuse than their heterosexual counterparts. These veterans also reported facing significant challenges serving while concealing their sexual orientation; 69.3% of subjects in the study reported experiencing fear or anxiety as a result of concealing their sexual identity, and 60.5% reported that those experiences led to a more difficult time for the respondent than heterosexual colleagues. This study also concludes that 14.7% of LGB American veterans made serious attempts at suicide. [9] This race of suicide attempt compares to another study of the entire American veteran community that found .0003% of American veterans attempt suicide.[10]
Evidence suggests that for LGB service members in the United States, the conditions of service and daily life have improved dramatically following the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Soldiers who choose to come out experience feelings of liberation, and report that no longer having to hide their orientation allows them to focus on their jobs.[11] Support groups for LGB soldiers have also proliferated in the United States.[12]
^ abcMoradi, Bonnie (2009). "Sexual Orientation Disclosure, Concealment, Harassment, and Military Cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT Military Veterans". Military Psychology. 21 (4): 513–533. doi:10.1080/08995600903206453.
^Croteau, J.M. (1996). "Research on the work experience of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: An integrative review of methodology and findings". Journal of Vocational Behavior. 48 (2): 195–209. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0018.
^Griffith, James (2002). "Multilevel analysis of cohesion's relation to stress, well-being, identification, disintegration, and perceived combat readiness". Military Psychology. 14 (3): 217–239. doi:10.1207/S15327876MP1403_3.
^Griffith, James (1999). "Relating cohesion to stress, strain, disintegration, and performance: An organizing framework". Military Psychology. 11: 27–55. doi:10.1207/s15327876mp1101_3. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^Sinclair, James (2006). "Stress-CARE: An integrated model of individual differences in soldier performance under stress". Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat. 1: 202–231. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Allowing gay military personnel has been the subject of great debate. The latest figures show that only around 35 countries have welcomed homosexual personnel into their ranks (i.e., the vast majority of industrialized, Western countries, as well as Brazil, South Africa, Israel, and South Korea), whereas the rest of the world continues to think them unfit for service.[1]
This keeps pace with worldwide attitudes toward homosexuality, which, according to recent figures, have only improved in affluent countries where religion is less central to daily life[2]. This means most countries, particularly developing countries where religion is still a pervasive force, outright disapprove of homosexuality and accordingly forbid openly gay men and women from serving in their militaries.
The arguments against allowing openly gay servicemen and women in the military abound. While most research data have all but debunked traditional arguments in favor of policies like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, homosexuality is still perceived by most countries to be incompatible with military service.[1]
A recurrent argument for a ban on homosexuals in the military rests on the assumption that, in the face of potentially homosexual members of their unit, prospective recruits would shy away from military service. Based on an inconclusive study produced by the RAND Corporation in the run-up to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, American military recruits were expected to decrease by as much as 7%.[2] However, this does not appear to have materialized.[3]
In a line of work that regularly demands that personnel be in close living quarters, allowing openly homosexual servicemen is argued to flout a fundamental tenet of military service: ensuring that soldiers remain undistracted from their mission. If gay men are allowed to shower with their fellow male soldiers, so goes the argument, this would, in effect, be putting "sexually-compatible partners in unacceptably close proximity," and possibly have adverse effects on retention and morale of troops.[4][5] Anecdotal evidence advanced during the hearings on Don't Ask, Don't Tell of 1993, with US Senator Sam Nunn and General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. recalled "“instances where heterosexuals have been solicited to commit homosexual acts, and, even more traumatic emotionally, physically coerced to engage in such acts.”[6]
Military historian Mackubin Thomas Owens lamented in an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal that gay men and women would be too partial to their lovers in the heat of battle. "Does a superior order his or her beloved into danger," Owens asks, "if he or she demonstrates favoritism, what is the consequence for unit morale and discipline? What happens when jealousy rears its head?" Owens echoes the fear that allowing gay soldiers would be deleterious to unit cohesion on the battlefield, arguing that concern for one's lover in a given unit would override any sense of loyalty to the unit as a whole, particularly in situations of life and death.[7]
Owens further asserts that homosexuality may be incompatible with military service because it undermines the very ethos of a military, that is, one of nonsexual "friendship, comradeship or brotherly love."[8]
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a socially conservative advocacy organization, believes that allowing openly homosexual soldiers threatens the religious liberty of servicemen who disapprove of homosexuality for religious reasons.[9]
I am a master student at the Graduate Institute and I'm editing Wikipedia with 4 other colleges as part of this assignment. We identified numerous changes that we could make to this article, and that we would like to discuss with other wikipedians.
1. 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,” “non- heterosexual” 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 of the 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.
@Kraljsamsvijeta: made some bold edits adding content that argues against including openly LGBT people in military service. The material was largely sourced to opinion blogs and position papers that we not published by reliable sources. Please discuss. - MrX14:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: thank you for your comments. your points are well taken, but please keep in mind that the section is called "arguments" for forbidding openly LGBT servicemen, not "hard, factual evidence suggesting that LGBT members be banned from military service." Furthermore, this section is necessary in order to present both sides of the debate. Arguments by definition are not necessarily informed by facts, and in the case of LGBT military personnel are largely anecdotal or opinion-based--hence the selection of sources. Kraljsamsvijeta (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all opposed to presenting both side of the argument, but it's preferable to integrate the arguments into a concise prose. Neutrality partly depends on presenting content in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. This means that we should not include every argument, especially of they are cherry picked.
To give a specific example,
this study from the Rand corporation might be useful if it was cited by other reliable sources. A larger concern is that it is a 20 year old study. In the past 20 years, there have been substantial cultural shifts in the US as well as changes to US policy.
Actually, I as I dig through this material, I think some of it may be salvageable if secondary sources can be added. I'm going to self-revert.- MrX16:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the introduction doesn't make justice to the actual content of the article. It has to summarize the content of the sections, not to bring a new point (linking religion, worldwide attitude and sexual orientation in the military. Can someone reformulate it?Vincentunpack (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the top image states that, in countries color-coded as 03F (blue), Gay, bisexual and transgender men can serve in the military. This seems counter-intuitive, however. I would assume that, in countries where lesbian women are not allowed to serve in the military, trans men would find more legal difficulties serving than trans women. There is no source for the map, making me wonder if it is verifiable in the first place, but it also makes it difficult to ascertain whether this is a mistake.
The article doesn't go in much detail about binary transgenderism either. Formerly, the section on Brazil made a statement on "transgendered males (including travestis)", which was obviously inaccurate. Nowhere else is "trans man", "transgender man", "transgendered man", etc, or female equivalents mentioned. Does anyone know what's up?
My gut feeling says that, in many countries, transgender women would be allowed to serve, while transgender men are not. I'd like some input so we can set this issue straight :) ~Mable (chat) 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I both see your concern and fear that if we simply put "transgender women" in there, it may confuse in context. Assuming our reading of the facts is correct, could we say "gay and bisexual men and transgendered persons with male biology" or somesuch? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we wouldn't put "trans women" in there wikilinked. It would be "...men and transgendered persons assigned male at birth" in your example, by the way, which doesn't read too bad, I suppose. It would be more inclusive for non-binary people, at least, though I don't think that's the intent here ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 21:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good call raising this issue. I suspect that we might not actually have the sourcing on many of these countries to make a call about their policies on trans people - some of them might not even have the language in their laws for it. (Which is why I wouldn't agree with obfuscatory changes aimed at non-binary inclusion. It's a map of policy, so if the policies don't discuss it, we're editorializing. Do they or do they not ban trans men and/or trans women from serving?) @Sceptre:, can you help us out? Where does the info come from? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The information comes from intersecting the list where gay people can serve, trans people can serve, but women cannot. At least, that was when I was doing the map. Sceptre(talk)17:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but should we just remove the map from Wikipedia entirely, seeing as we can't verify it with reliable sources? ~Mable (chat) 05:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This wiki article omits important information on how being gay affects the lives of soldiers in the Israeli military. It does have a section that talks about how Israel accepts people into the military despite their sexual orientation. While all the information in that section is true, it does not go into enough detail. The article mentions the 1993 policy, but I plan on explaining its role. The 1993 policy was put into effect to remove the 1983 policy. [1] The 1983 policy allowed prospective Israeli soldiers to be questioned about their sexual orientation. Scholars Ben-Ari and Kaplan suspect that the prospective soldiers' responses affected what military unit they would be assigned to. I also will mention how Ben-Ari and Kaplan, the scholars who wrote Sexual Orientation and Military Service, cited a study about how an Israeli soldier's sexual partner preference affects the way they are treated. The study conveyed that the soldiers bonded in the Israeli military through homophobic remarks and sexualizing women.[2] There was another study that scholars Ben-Ari and Kaplan created that determined how gay Israeli soldiers responded to the macho man stereotype in the military. The gay soldiers either isolated themselves from the rest of the soldiers or attempted to adapt to the heterosexual norms. In the end, the soldiers' military performance was not affected by their response but their adaptation to the military was affected.[3]
^ Eyal Ben-Ari, Danny Kaplan, "Brothers and Others in Arms: Managing Gay Identity in Combat Units of the Israel Army," Sage Publications (2000):400.
^ Ben-Ari, Kaplan, "Brothers and Others in Army," 402.
^ Ben-Ari, Kaplan, "Brothers and Others in Army," 421
^Eyal Ben-Ari, Danny Kaplan, "Brothers and Others in Arms: Managing Gay Identity in Combat Units of the Israel Army," Sage Publications (2000): 397-429.
on the map the Netherlands is marked as GBT, but I couldn't find any evidence anywhere that lesbian woman aren't allowed in the Dutch militairy. Can anyone search/confirm this? 321supermaximus (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This section does not have a reliable link to the actual index, which makes it kind of useless and pointless to have as the first section of the article. What are you meant to learn here? I tried to find the index but as far as I can make out - and I may be wrong here - it hasn't been updated since 2014, which makes it not very useful. Discuss. LastDodo (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As far as I can see the only issues you raised were that your proposal was more concise and that "LGBT" somehow needed to be in the title. While it is more concise, it is also not good English and I therefore see no problem with the current title. I would not oppose "LGBT people and military service", but I don't actually think it's necessary to move the article at all. Why are we so hung up on an abbreviation over a perfectly good English phrase? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wiki Education assignment: Global LGBTQ Rights and Representation
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurencraven (article contribs).
More Sources:
^ Ramirez, Maria Heliana; Rogers, Stephen Joseph; Johnson, Harriet Lee; Banks, Jon; Seay, Wanda Penny; Tinsley, Billy Lee; Grant, Andrew Warren (2013-02-01). "If We Ask, What They Might Tell: Clinical Assessment Lessons from LGBT Military Personnel Post-DADT". Journal of Homosexuality. 60 (2–3): 401–418. doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.744931. ISSN 0091-8369. PMID 23414279.
^ Myers, Meghann (2020-06-15). "LGBT service members are allowed to be out and proud, but a fear of repercussions persists". Military Times. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ Matarazzo, Bridget B.; Barnes, Sean M.; Pease, James L.; Russell, Leah M.; Hanson, Jetta E.; Soberay, Kelly A.; Gutierrez, Peter M. (2014-04). "Suicide Risk among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Military Personnel and Veterans: What Does the Literature Tell Us?". Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 44 (2): 200–217. doi:10.1111/sltb.12073. {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Schuyler, Ashley C.; Klemmer, Cary; Mamey, Mary Rose; Schrager, Sheree M.; Goldbach, Jeremy T.; Holloway, Ian W.; Castro, Carl Andrew (2020-06). "Experiences of Sexual Harassment, Stalking, and Sexual Assault During Military Service Among LGBT and Non‐LGBT Service Members". Journal of Traumatic Stress. 33 (3): 257–266. doi:10.1002/jts.22506. ISSN 0894-9867. {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Goldbach, Jeremy T.; Castro, Carl Andrew (2016-04-16). "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Service Members: Life After Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Current Psychiatry Reports. 18 (6): 56. doi:10.1007/s11920-016-0695-0. ISSN 1535-1645.
^ Resume, Empire (2021-10-14). "LGBTQ in the Military". Empire Resume. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ "A Brief History of LGBT Military Policy and Improving Acceptance, Integration and Health among LGBT Service Members". USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ "Serving with pride: LGBTQ Soldiers celebrate diversity, speak their truth". www.army.mil. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ "The Battles that Remain: Military Service and LGBT Equality". Center for American Progress. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ Nast, Condé (2020-05-13). "Over 80 Percent of LGBTQ+ Service Members Report Sexual Harassment in Military". them. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
Laurencraven (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Until recently, many countries banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces." Could we get a full/approximate date as people might not know when this was Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LGBT militaries of JUMBAC countries, such as the United States, Japan, Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, can serve because there are no laws prohibiting this.
The following countries whose LGBT militaries can serve include:
.svg)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Nations that do not bar openly homosexual people from serving in the military.Nations with semi-ambiguous policies ("don't ask, don't tell," etc.)Nations with a ban on homosexual people in the military.
Japan
United States
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
