"Cure" for Homosexuality found?

I have long argued, and often been pilloried for doing so, that Homosexuality is not "hardwired". In other words one is not born gay, so much as born with a predisposition to homosexuality, which can then be influenced by experiences, environment, and other factors. Mainly this has been because of the lack of a 1-1 correlation between homosexuality among twins. By that I mean that if you have an identical twin who is gay, you are more likely to be gay yourself, though its not guaranteed, despite the fact that the two of you carry the exact same genes. Given the increased incidence of homosexuality among identical twins, coupled with the lack of a 1-1 correlation, it seemed reasonable to me that while there may be a genetic basis for homosexuality, it was certainly not as simple as being born gay.

There is now some evidence that this is in fact the case. Granted, a fruit fly is not a human, and fruit fly sexuality is different in many ways from human sexuality, however given that these are early trials this new research is very interesting. Whats most interesting, at least to me though, is the possibilities inherent in this research. Namely that it is, at least theoretically, possible that researchers could one day create a "cure" for homosexuality. Naturally this would be a huge issue regardless of your own personal views on homosexuality. But it also brings back a point, or at least has the potential to, that many had already felt was settled. Although it took the WHO until 1992 to officially declassify homosexuality as a disease, the APA had done so back in 1973, based on the assumption that homosexuality was an innate trait, and thus did not qualify as a sexual deviancy. But if a "cure" were developed that could, within hours, turn a gay man straight, (and to be fair vice-versa) would that still be the case?

In other words would the very existence of a "cure" imply that homosexuality is in fact a disease? And if so, what would the implications be? Would forcing a patient to take this "treatment" be a violation of their rights? If so would insurance companies be precluded from paying for this "treatment" for those who did want to take it?

Assuming DADT has not been repealed by the time this hypothetical treatment were made available, would the US army begin placing this drug in the food or water of its soldiers in an effort to ensure no one violates the policy? If so, what would happen to those soldiers once they were discharged? Would they be given the option of "returning"? Would a gay man who wishes to enlist be willing to be "made straight" for the duration of his service in exchange for being allowed to serve despite having been openly gay?

What about the possibilities of using this "cure" as a type of date rape drug? For example slipping it into a lesbians drink in the hope that after the "switch" she would find you more to her liking? Or Perhaps a gay man in an area with a low population of homosexuals might be tempted to slip the "drug" into other men's drinks as a way of quickly increasing the gay population?

And what about this drugs utility as a recreational drug? Would there be those who would pay to temporarily "switch" their sexuality in an attempt to "broaden their experiences" as Grant Morrison suggested in "The Invisible's"?

Furthermore if the suppression of glutamatergic synapses can "switch" a man from straight to gay, is it possible there are environmental factors that do the same? Could there be something in the air/food/water in certain areas that suppresses glutamatergic synapses? Is it possible that some given percentage of the current homosexual population has already unknowingly been switched? if so should that be reversed? Would they want it to be? Even if it could be proven and individual had unknowingly imbibed a substance capable of doing such as a child, and as such had grown up gay even though they were not "supposed to be" what would be the right course of action? Should the medical community treat such cases, if they could be established with a high degree of confidence, as diseases? Where does the choice of the individual come in, and in fact, given how fundamental this change is, would someone in this situation even be capable of making a choice?

Then there are questions relating to parenting. If this "treatment" were to exist, would it be proper for parents who suspect their child may be gay to force their child to be "treated" if they so chose? Where would the line between human rights and religious freedom be drawn for example? If your parents are Muslims, or Christians who believe that homosexuality is immoral, should they be allowed to use that as a rationale for changing your preferences?

What if this treatment were to require a regular medical regime such as the management of Bi-polar disorder requires? Would "I forgot my pills" become a new accepted "excuse" for homosexual behavior by politicians and married men? Would the same hold true for men "medicating" themselves into homosexuality who are in long term relationships? If this "treatment" did in fact make sexuality a choice, in that one could choose to be what one has been or make a change, would that then offer those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals the ability to do so, based on he fact that unlike race, homosexuality or heterosexuality would be a choice available to everyone?

What about population control uses? Would say, the Chinese government require unmarried men and women to take this treatment to "develop" homosexuality as a way of reducing pregnancies? Or perhaps require that all those in the armed services take it due to the Male/female imbalance in china?


A lot of questions, and very few answers. But we need to start asking them now, before this "treatment" is brought to market, even before its been verified such a treatment were possible. Because I have a feeling that none of these questions will be easy to answer, and I know that once others start thinking about it, they will come up with many, many more, and probably better ones.

Gays in the Miliatry part 3 (whereupon I get my ass royally kicked in a logic fight)

Ok.
So I just got my ass handed to me.
Good job Scott.

A few minor points however.
First Scotts point.

But if you look at the original post, it has nothing to do with unit
cohesion, but is instead looking at how feminist theory about how straight men
might treat women can be used to say that straight men shouldn't’t be subjected to
being leered at either. But a woman (or a man) can sue over the creation of
sexist, hostile work conditions without showing that it has created a
degradation of unit cohesion. In fact, even if an employer could show that his
workers were generally more unified because they picked on the outcast gender,
the sexist, hostile work place would still be actionable. One might also note
that “unit cohesion” may not even be a particularly important goal in a company.
It is entirely possible that individuality and competition between people at the
company could be actively encouraged; however, even in that environment, a
sexist, hostile work place would still get the company in hot water. So when we
look at RMM’s first post and compare it to his second, we can see that there is
a fundamental shift in the reasoning concerning why out gays shouldn't be
allowed in the military. First, it’s because it is unethical in the same way
subjecting women to hostile work places is unethical, but later, it’s because
unit cohesion might suffer. Now, I’m not going to say that RMM’s shifting
reasons betrays his forgone conclusion, that the reasons are secondary to the
conclusion that gays shouldn’t be in the military, but I’m not going to say that
isn’t happening either. I’m suspicious of people who claim they believe
something for one reason but when that reason is shown to be invalid then claim
an entirely different reason for acting or believing something. Still, his new
arguments aren’t entirely without merit, so let’s look at ‘em.

There's a reason my thoughts have shifted over the course of our discussion Scott, one I'm not surprised you're unused too. You have been changing my mind about many things. As my mind has changed so has my perspective. Gays in the military isn't a subject I have researched or thought much about prior to our conversation. Nor am I an academic. Most of my posts are simply reflective of my reasoning at that time. Plus I'm a little nuts.

OK, I think the first thing we should note is that while RMM can’t find any
evidence to support his position that open gays will hurt the military, there is
evidence that keeping open gays out hurts the military. They’ve lost money and
manpower because of the ban. No doubt about it. Further, there is significant
evidence suggesting that the ban has been used to hurt morale and unit cohesion.
A study of Canada’s military found that in the three years after they dropped
their ban, sexual harassment against women dropped 46%. Speculation was that the
harassers used the threat of calling a woman a lesbian against her to strengthen
their ability to harass, but once there was no fear of losing her job for being
called a lesbian, women were more able to stand up to the harassers.
Second,
the British did investigate. As did Canada. So did South Africa. As have all
militaries that allowed open gays in. The methods they used seem to satisfy
them, so why aren’t the methods used by professionals in the military adequate
for RMM? Beats me. But what we can note is that he feels that the absence of
evidence of problems created by letting gays in somehow trumps the actual
evidence from multiple sources that banning gays is hurting the military. How
does non-evidence beat out evidence? And may I point out that anyone who demands
evidence to make a change and then suggests that there may not be any evidence
out there is probably sticking to his stance due to faith, not
rationality?
RMM’s next argument goes like this:

Its not so much that I felt the absence of evidence trumps evidence. Its that I didnt realise how much evidence there was.

And it is true that Scott did mention “anecdotal evidence,” but he did not say
that it was true. More importantly, Scott knows that how rape tends to happen
with women and how it happens with men is something very different. First, let’s
take a look at the FBI’s
reports and we’ll see that women are raped or threatened with rape 13 times
more than men are. Only 0.03% of men are raped or even threatened with rape in a
year, and this includes rapes and threats of rape by women. So let’s not pretend
that the threat of rape for men is particularly similar to the threat of rape
for women. Second, women tend to be attacked by people they are close to, but
men tend to be attacked by strangers; therefore, it would seem that increasing
the number of men that women are involved with would increase their chances of
being attacked, but logic would suggest that it would decrease the chances for a
man. Third, women are more likely to be attacked in their homes, but men were
less likely to be attacked in their homes. Again, it would seem that having
women live with more men would increase the probability of women being attacked
but having a man live with more people would decrease the probability of being
attacked. If RMM’s supposition were true, we’d expect to see people in other
professions who have an unusual degree of intimacy and allow gays within the
profession would be disproportionately attacked, for instance, professional
athletes, police men, and fire fighters. Anyone ever heard of the scourge of
firehouse rapes? I haven’t either.
RMM’s next tactic is to say:

Good point. I hadn't thought the implications through to Police Officers or Firemen. However I would point as "male rape" is the "most under reported crime of all" comparing the incidences of male to female rape is not valid. I'm not arguing what the statistics show mind you, just pointing out that since we both agree the Male stat is flawed, it cant be accurately compared.

It is true that male rape is extraordinarily underreported even outside of
prisons. IIRC, it is the most underreported of all violent crimes, so
underreported that getting statistical data on it is really difficult. However,
some things do seem to have come clear. First, the majority of people who rape
men are self-described straight men. That means that even if you think these
rapists are gay, they wouldn’t be kept out of the military under Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell because they don’t think they are gay. Even if you asked them, they
wouldn’t tell you there were gay. Second, while there is no evidence to suggest
that gay men are more likely to rape, there is evidence to suggest that they are
more likely to be raped. RMM is typically afraid that gay men will be raping
straight men, but the data suggests the opposite. Now, one could argue that
having those gay men being raped in the military is also bad so gays should be
kept out for their own sake, but other groups, notably women, have been
subjected to a disproportionate number of attacks, but we allow them to decide
if they are willing to join, so I’m not sure why gay men, who are statistically
far less likely to be sexually assaulted than women, shouldn’t be allowed in the
military. To compound that, given that gay men are more likely to be raped, but
would also be more afraid to report rapes for fear that their sexual orientation
would be exposed, mightn’t allowing gays the freedom to serve without being
fired decrease the number of rapes in the military as gay men felt more free to
point out the rapists and rapists would know they were more likely to be caught?
Remember the experience with the women in the Canadian forces? Couldn’t
something like that be happening to men? Finally, let’s note that DADT allows
gays to be in the military. It only keeps open gays out of the military. While
there is evidence to suggest that more gays would join the military if they
could serve without the threat of firing, I somehow doubt that it is open gays,
many of whom would be lesbians, who are the real threat of rape compared to the
straight guys and the closeted gays. And let’s not forget that the Canadian
experience suggests that there might be less sexual harassment of women and
probably gay men if gays could serve openly.
RMM’s next line of reasoning is
a lulu!

I have to disagree with some of your labels, but the reasoning is sound. I would point out that any man who rapes a man is not straight, but I agree that they would not identify themselves as gay, so your point is essentially correct. However I do wonder about your certainty that "gay males" are less likely to rape. Could you be more explicit? Do you mean on a proportional basis? I cant think of any reason why that would be so. WHy don't gay men commit rape at the same rate as straight men? Is it that the victim is more likely to be at an more equal physical level?

So here RMM is suggesting that the problem with allowing gays in the
military is that people aren’t willing to be critical of gays unless they have
some personal motivation. Take a big gulp of that and wash it around your mouth
for a while. Oh, don’t swallow it, but let the bitter taste of that steep for a
moment before you do your spit take. RMM doesn’t believe there would be people
willing to expose homosexual rapists. He doesn’t think that there would be
people willing to use an increase in homosexual rape for political advantage. So
now I have to wonder if RMM put absolutely no thought into that or if he lives
in Candy Land, yummy, sweet, sweet Candy Land where gay people aren’t
scapegoated by politicians and no one is willing to believe the worst about
faggots. Can anyone really imagine a scenario where a military did a report and
found that its soldiers were being raped and no one would think to use that for
political advantage against … oh, let’s say the party that voted to let gays in
the military or against gays themselves to strengthen a conservative party’s
hold on a homophobic population? To put it plainly, not only have people used
actual evidence about gays against political parties or against gays, conniving
politicians have used rumor, innuendo, myth, and lies about homosexuals to
attack political parties and homosexuals. So even in our wildest imaginings, can
any of us conceive of the possibility that a study that found that gays were
raping soldiers and ruining the military would not at least be leaked to
conservative talk shows? OK, now that we agree that of course these studies
would be made public, can we think again about how the world militaries have
been studying the influence of openly gay soldiers and no one has found a study
that says they are ruining the military?

Yes scott Actually I can imagine a situation like that. Easily. You seem to disregard the power of a popular position. You yourself have pointed out that many will continue to believe the theory, instead of the evidence, because the theory is popular, or because it fits into the way they see the world. (feminists and porn) yet don't think the same could apply here? Can you really not see a government, particularly a conservative government, fearing that to publicise such a report, would make them look like the homophobic fools they are accused of being? More to the point are you honestly saying there aren't those who would intentionally suppress such a report, because the results differ from their views? My point in regard to Britain still stands. In many of these countries it is ILLEGAL to engage in "Hate speech" and what that entails is very loosely defined. As I mentioned simply expressing ones opinion, whether right or wrong, can cause legal penalties if they are not of the approved sentiment. My point was that in order for such laws to be passed in the first place, the sentiment must exist in the culture before hand. From my own personal experiences, Britian (which was the only country I was making this point about as I have been there) is overwhelmingly "gay-friendly"if such a study were published, most would simply dismiss or ignore it. Id also point out you assume there is a political benefit to "gay bashing" while that is true in some cases and places, its not always so. In many places "gay-bashing" or even the perception of it has a heavy political cost from what I can see.

I’m not convinced I’ve ever seen evidence that the early integrated black
kids were handpicked to help prove that integration was correct, but I could at
least see how it could be done. I can see how a school board might request that
teachers or school administrators send the records of their students or the
board could ask for recommendations of the top students to integrate, and then
the board could examine the potential students and select some to go to white
schools. But how would this work for gays getting to the military? Does RMM
believe there is some elected or appointed (by whom???) board of homosexuals who
would examine the gays trying to enter the military? And what would this
mythical board use to determine which gays to allow in? As RMM noted, the
records for gay rapists are virtually unknown as the crime is almost never
reported. Would gay men volunteer the information that they are rapists or
harassers? Or is there an investigating wing of this secret, gay, shadow
government that collects information on us and has files filed with pictures of
our old tricks and disgruntled acquaintances? Who funds this group? Where do
they meet and how well is it decorated? How do they enforce their edicts? I’ve
heard gay conspiracy theories before, but a secret organization that we use to
self-police ourselves into being good? If we had that, wouldn’t we in fact be
far better citizens than straight people? And given that many countries have
allowed open homosexuals in their ranks far longer than most serve in the
military (e.g. Canada has allowed open gays for 14 years), doesn’t the “holding
themselves to a standard of conduct they can not sustain over the long term”
seem somewhat less than like? What’s extra funny about this for gay people is
the idea that we as a collective group could possibly be this regimented. We
can’t even agree that there should be a military, let alone who should be in it.
There are factious splinter groups over what causes AIDS, if gay marriage should
be supported or if all marriage should be destroyed, whether or not integration
into straight society is a good thing, what if anything the role of religion
should play in gay life, if drag queens should strive to appear real or to be
funny, etc. Do you know how many times gay leather clubs split up over something
inane? But RMM thinks it’s possible that we’ve gotten together to decide who
will and who won’t get into the military. If we were that focused and organized,
not only would we have been able to get into the US military by now, we’d
probably have invaded Poland.

Scott, I'm not positing the existence of a "gay council" Nor was I assuming a monolithic viewpoint. I was simply pointing out, that those gays who are in the military realise that their existence is being debated, and would, by their interactions with other gays, set a standard of conduct. Lets say your were in the Army, and you say another man you knew to be gay, using his rank to try and extort sexual favors from a subordinate. Isn't it likely that you would attempt to deal with him unofficially so as not to cast a pall on all gays, rather than going through official channels. That is to say, wouldn't you be concerned that by reporting him, it would create fuel for those trying to remove you? Perhaps even find a way to have him drummed out for charges that had nothing to do with his sexuality?
I think its a difference of perspective, when I said self policing, you thought of some form of official body with rules and regs, I was talking about the patterns that emerge from the individual interactions of a group (gays in the military) who share basic fears, concerns, threats etc. I would assume the vast bulk of those serving openly, would want to ensure they did not "let down the team" for fear that many would judge all by their example.
However that being said, I hadn't realised that Canada passed this law fourteen years ago. I, for some reason, thought it was four.

The funny thing about this argument is that it rarely pops up except when we are
dealing with gays. The military has made innumerable changes. It has allowed
women in. It integrated blacks. We went from the Founding Fathers being
terrified by the idea of standing army to being terrified by the idea of not
having the world’s most powerful standing army. We never had a draft until the
Civil War. We’ve altered tactics, recruiting methods, uniforms, training
methods, the placement of military bases, our commitments to international
policing, our policies of engagement, and the tools we give the military. We are
so concerned about erring to side of caution when considering changes that might
have negative effects that we keep open homosexuals out of the military but give
the military nuclear weapons. Logic would seem to dictate that anyone who uses
an imagined secret gay military review board as a reason to keep gays out of the
military is not using logic as a dictate. RMM is correct that I am for caution,
but I’m certainly not for irrational paralysis.

I would point out that the "imagined secret review board" was your own interpretation. What I was thinking of is closer to market theory.

If RMM had done a little research,
he’d have found that his concerns were already examined and found to be
groundless. For instance, although several people said they would quit the
Australian military if allowed open gays, the reality was that when it happened.
so few quit that the number was negligible. Moreover, nations who changed their
policies did not find that recruitment was hurt. When presented with compelling
reasons, RMM doesn’t change his mind, he changes the compelling reasons into
something that is not compelling without any evidence to support his change. He
assumes that this baseless reasoning must be superior to the researched
conclusions of professionals in the field. Usually, we call that certainty of
one’s correctness despite contrary facts “bigotry,” not “logic” or “reason.”

Scott what do you call this entire conversation if not research? Some people read scholarly works, Some people just argue with those people until they are presented with the facts they want to know. The best way to learn an argument for something is to argue against it I have found. I wanted to learn what the case was for allowing gays to serve openly, so I marshalled the best argument I could think of against it.

Fortunately, we don’t have to bow to bigotry because all evidence suggests
that it is working to harm the greater good. In addition to the GAO study
mentioned above and the Canadian study on sexual harassment, there are a
significant number of military researchers who are suggesting the military ban
on open homosexuals is undercutting how people feel about the military. Because
most people believe gays should be allowed to serve openly, they are more likely
to see the military and an organization with values that they have trouble
supporting. Military experts refer to it as a “gap” like we used to refer to the
“generation gap.” And they worry about it. There are several dangers to having a
gap in values between a powerful military and a powerful populace.

I think this is possibly one of your two best arguments. Could you, (or did you already) point those studies out to me. The "gap" studies I mean.

The U.S. may no be as tolerant of homosexuality as some nations of Europe,
but I have trouble imaging the kind of violence and protest met by homosexuals
in Israel appearing in even the most conservative and homophobic cities in the
U.S. today. But Israel is able to include open homosexuals without problems. If
RMM were gay, he might be aware that not all nations of Europe are as tolerant
as the Britain. Italy, Poland, and Greece (ironically) are all a bit behind and
all have gays in their militaries. And finally, RMM ignores that U.S. soldiers
have already served with out gays from other nations when they worked with NATO,
the UN, and NORAD without significant incident.

SO conservative equals homophobia?

Again, I can’t help but to notice how the fear of being sexually harassed
by homosexuals is being overplayed as if it was homosexuals harassing straight
guys that has been the problem and not the reverse. As for a solution to this
problem, well, if kicking out gay harassers helps to keep harassment from
happening, then it seems that the proper thing to do would be to keep out
straight harassers, not to keep open gays out of the military. And let’s remind
ourselves that incidents of sexual harassment dropped significantly in the
Canadian military when gays were allowed to serve openly, the opposite of what
RMM fears would happen

Scott I get the point your making, but I am very troubled by this "aura of sinlessness" you seem to think homosexuality confers. Homosexuals dont harass straight guys? I lived on south beach for years, and gays are no less likely to harras a man, than a straight guy is to harass a woman. There is just as high a percentage of idiots who dont understand what "no" means on your side of the rainbow as mine, to think otherwise is simply ludicrous.

Canada and Australia removed their bans 15 years ago. Israel 14 years ago. South
Africa 12. Great Britain 8. All of these are much longer than most people are in
the military. How can it possibly be true that with a collective 49 years worth
of experience from just these 4 nations, ignoring that virtually all militaries
in Europe have allowed open homosexuals in the military since 2000, that not
enough time as passed? Surely, this is enough time, considering that all of them
come to same conclusion. What other military decision waited for more than the
15 years that we’ve been able to study Canada and Australia? We didn’t wait that
long to decide to build the atomic bomb.
I’m all for caution, but what RMM is
suggesting is more like cowardice, paralysis, and paranoia. We are braver, more
innovative, and more rational than RMM is giving us credit for. If the greatest
nation on earth can’t accomplish what South Africa has with it’s contemptible
and recent past, something is seriously wrong.

Like I said I actually wasnt aware that it was 15 years. I was under the impression these policies had only been in place since around 2000 or so.
I will say though that comparing the development of a weapon during a time of war (and one we werent really sure we could win) and a social change is simply not apt.

I do apreciate the discussion we have been having Scott, even if you did seem pretty quick to pull the bigotry gun. I have never claimed to have the sum of all knowledge, and a incorrect predicate can lead to the same conclusions as bigotry very easily. Other than that though, (and I must admit it was quite entertaining to see you acting like a real feminist for once) it was quite illuminating. My final suggestion is that you should seriously reexamine a few assumptions you seem to have.
1) that gays are somehow "better" in that they dont ever try to force themselves.
2) Conservative = Homophobia. (I mean come on I thought you were better than that)
3) dont asume that self selecting has to mean "intentional organised effort"

There are many ways people can and do unconciously self elect, and it requires no cooperation, planning, or aforethought.

Gays in the Millitary, Pt 2

Mad Thinker Scott has recently responded to my first post on the subject of gays in the military, and while I think he has some good points, I also think theres a few he seems to be missing.

First of all I beleive he misinterperted what I meant by "uncomfortable" according to his opening parpagraph.

First, let me say that I am not unsympathetic to this argument. I get that it could be awkward and creepy for some straight guys to be in the shower or a bed with a gay man, but in the final analysis, this line of reasoning misses what is really at issue because it makes a number of assumptions that just don’t hold up. While it is true that we would never impose on the average woman in her workplace the duty to shower, sleep, and billet with a straight guy, it is also true, as everyone who argues against having gays in the military repeats ad nauseam, that the military is not like the average workplace, and we don’t want it to be. The criteria we use to decide if something should be done in the military are radically different and should be radically different than what we use in the average workplace.
For instance, in the military, “does this make the soldier uncomfortable?” is not nearly as important a question as “does this make the unit more or less effective?” We might forbid the average workplace from subjecting a woman to sexism that created a hostile work environment for her, but we might demand that a woman in the military subject herself to a sexist environment (e.g. an area controlled by sharia law) that is without a doubt a hostile work environment. There are all sorts of things that we might expect a woman to endure in the military that she should not have to endure in the average workplace, e.g. being struck by her superior, being deprived of common freedoms, no access to the regular legal system, etc. She might be forced to do something that is essentially suicidal for the good of the nation. And that’s the way it should be.

I should have been more specific when I said "uncomfortable", that was a error on my part. I had thought it would be assumed, but should have made it explicit that I meant uncomfortable not in the general sense of minor discomfort, but in the extreme sense of "uncomfortable enough to degrade unit cohesion" His point that members of the military are required to bear great discomfort for the sake of the nation is both well taken and accurate, however in order for the military to function, troops must trust each other explicitly. Loyalty to the members of ones own unit or a lack thereof, can be the deciding factor between a unit which accomplishes its mission and one which doesn't. Scott is absolutely correct in reframing the question from one of "comfort" to one of effectiveness, yet in doing so doesnt seem to consider the effect a lack of trust, or distrust in the motives of ones peers can have on effectivness. He then goes on to mention some of the anecdotal evidence which suggests that closer integration among the sexes can lead to problem behaviors, yet also doesnt seem to consider that many of those behaviors are just as possible among same sex yet differently orientated troops.

I’m not familiar with all the research done by the military that made them come to the conclusion that putting men and women together would be counterproductive, but I have seen some anecdotal evidence of increases in pregnancies, rape and sexual harassment that might suggest that it would be better for the sexes to stay separate. (Please note that these are behaviors the military is worried about, not expected sexual feelings.) Given that there is no substantive campaign to move women into men’s barracks, it may be that that anecdotal evidence is enough to keep the sexes separate. RMM’s question comes close to being what the real question should be, but it doesn’t quite make it because it doesn’t look at what the military has discovered about having gays in the military. The real question should be this:

Multiple studies (see here, here, here, and ever so many here) have found that they can’t justify segregating gay men from the military because evidence shows that including gay men hasn't hindered any military in the world, but excluding gay men may be harming ours. Why isn’t this idea applied to homosexuals?

And here is where we begin to disagree, as is well known "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Scott claims that the evidence shows that including gay men hasn't hurt the millitary, when in fact all hes shown is that as yet there is no evidence that it has. Its a minor point, yes, but one which I beleive is important. Understand, I accept Scott's contention that there is little to no evidence that including gays in the British army has damaged its capabillities, and I am not disputing that, my question is, if it were doing so, could we expect to see evidence of it, and if so what evidence could we expect to see?

Scott mentions that based on the anecdotal evidence billeting men and women together would seem to lead to an increase of rapes, pregnancies, and sexual harrasment, which would make it undesirable. My question is, assuming that the same negative potentialities exist vis a vis gays in the millitary (and I see no reason why it would be an illogical assumption, Homosexuals are no more inherantly noble than straight men), how aware would the army, or the public be?

Obviously pregnancy is not a consideration among men, but what of the other two? That is to say if there was an increase in incidences of homosexual rape or sexual harrasment, would we expect that to lead to an increase in the reporting of such, or would it be expressed by an invisible corrosion in morale? Given what I know of men in general, and of military men in particular I would expect the second to be more likely.

In other words even if homosexual rape in the Military increased by a significant factor, I wouldn't expect reported instances of such to increase much if at all. Why do I believe this to be the case? Primarily due to the lack of reported homosexual rapes in federal prisons. According to the National Institute of Justice, less than .oo5% of all inmates report being raped to the authorities, yet anyone with even the slightest knowledge of prison knows that the incidences of prison rape are far higher. Whats important here isn't how many happen, or the very different circumstances between men in prison and men in the military, but the reticence of men to report being sexually victimised. This is not a trend I would expect to reversed among military men, in point of fact I would expect this trend to be even more acute among them. Soldiers are, almost by definition, men who place great value in their masculinity. For them to admit to being victimised by another man sexually would be simply unthinkable for most. I also see no reason that this would not hold true for sexual harrasment and other non violent offenses as well.

The concern as to whether any trouble caused by allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the millitary would be appararent before it began to errode effectiveness is further complicated by the concern that even if such evidence were to come to light, I am unsure as to whether or not we could reasonably expect the governments in question to admit to it. I am not posittng any "gay friendly conspiracy". However we must recognise that it is a trend among governments and politicans not to admit the negative effects of a policy, no matter how apparent they might be, unless by doing so one can gain an advantage over ones opponents.

Given the substansially greater social acceptance of gays in the nations which have allowed homosexuals to serve openly, and the trend for anyone criticising policies relating to gays to be accused of homophobia, I dont see much advantage in making such problems public, and in fact can envision circumstances in which such a revelation would be damaging to the "whistleblowers" public carreer.

As an example if David Cameron were to present evidence that male on male rape has increased in the british military since the year 2000, and that it was degrading unit effectiveness, is it more likely that it would be seen as a concerned leader examining a problem or that it would be seen as a homophobic reaction? Given that this is the same populace that feels perfectly justified in placing those who express "anti-gay" (which includes statments of personal uncomfortability with homosexuality) comments in public on police watch lists, I can not logically see a scenario in which the former is more likely than the latter.

Finally, we must also recognise that even if there has been no increase in incidences of homosexual victimisation it is possible that this is due to a "I dont want to let the team down" philosophy. That is to say that its quite possible homosexuals in those militaries who have allowed them to serve openly are intentionally modifying thier behavior in order to allow homosexuals overall to "put their best foot forward" and holding themselves to a standard of conduct they can not sustain over the long term. Just as those Black children who first attended desegregated schoold in the south were by and large the most intelligent and well behaved children available in the community so as to ensure that desegregation provided no evidence for the charge that blacks were "inferior" its possible that the homosexual community is ensuring that only the best behaved among them are serving openly so as to ensure there is no evidence that allowing such will cause a problem.

Now I am not contending that any of these things are happening, merely pointing out that even if they were, we would not expect them to be visible within the type of reports that Scott is citing, and that as such, those reports do little to prove that the presence of openly gay service members is not hurting military effectiveness. Furthermore I think both Scott and I would agree that given the nature of the military, and its missions, it is not unreasonable to err on the side of caution when condsidering a change in policy would could have a hard to identify negative trend.

We also have to recognise that for the US military in particular, the idea of hidden resentment, and a lack of unit cohesion is not a theoretical problem but one which has led to a concrete problem for the military in the relatively recent past. US military leadership still shudders at the memory of Vietnam, in large part due to the high numbers of inter-unit killings, and the corrosive and contagious effect of the overall lack of morale during that conflict. I am not implying that allowing openly gay members should, would, or does, have anywhere near the effect on morale as having a large number of conscripted soldiers serving in an unpopular conflict (I dont beleive it does or even comes close). I am simply pointing out that the US military is more aware of the pernicious effects of low morale and a lack cohesion than most. I also dont think its a stretch to assume that soldiers preying upon fellow soldiers sexually would lead to low morale or a lack of unit cohesion.


On the other hand the benefits of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military are not as clear cut as they might at first seem. Scott posted this article which places the cost of firing and replacing gay servicemembers who violate DADT at around 364 million over ten years, and this one which states that the US Military could attract up to an additional 41,000 enlistees by repealing the ban, both of which present compelling arguments. I have no doubt that saving over 36 million dollars a year would be positive, nor am I denying that an additional 41,000 soldiers would be most welcome given current curcumstnaces.

My question however is whether these would be net benefits. That is to say would the additional 41,000 soldiers be greater than the number of men or women who would choose not to enlist due to the presence of openly gay men and women and would the money saved on retraining gay soldiers who violate DADT be greater than the funds spent retraining those service members who quit due to the repeal of said policy?

One thing Both Scott and I agree upon is this,

I think I speak for most gay people when I say that if our inclusion as out gay people really hurt the military, we would support the ban on out gays in the military because military effectiveness, with enormously important goals and people’s lives on the line, is more important than our feelings.

The most imprtant thing is not how people feel about the policy, but whether or not the policy as it exists is better for the militaries effectiveness than an alternative policy. The problem I have is twofold,
1) The way people feel about thier fellow soldiers, especially those in thier unit, has a direct effect on military effectiveness. By the same token the way people feel about the military has a direct effect on their recruiting efforts. While bigotry is not somehting I am in the habit of supporting or endorsing, I think both Scott and I would agree that if enough people were bigoted against gays that allowing them to serve openly would cause a net reduction in recruiting, then in this one isntance we would bow to that bigotry for the sake of the greater good. I personally dont beleive that this would be the case, as I dont beleive the average american is that bigoted and it doesnt seem this has happened in other countries, but it also must be recognised that britain, and europe in general is far more tolerant of homosexuality than the US is.

2) I see no way to accurately predict or even measure, whether changing DODT would bring any meaningful benefit/penalty.

While Scott seems to be satisfied with a lack of evidence that allowing gays in the military is causing problems, I would prefer to see evidence that its not casuing problems. I am not unsympathetic to Scott's position that unless evidence of a problem is shown, it is reasonable to assume that none exists, but I disagree for the reasons explained above. Unfortunately, I also can not formulate a standard of evidence that could be reasonable used to prove that this policy isn't casuing problems. While the best indicator of whether or not its causing a problem would probably be an anonymous poll of military members, the only ones I have seen thus far have had too small a sample size to draw any concrete conclusions from.

Without the abillity to accurately gauge the risk of changing policies, or the abillity to accurately measure whether or not that risk is being realised, it becomes impossible to weigh the risk versus the expected reward in any rational manner. Many of the factors that would lead to a net loss are simply impossible to anticipate, and others can only be anticipated in the most general sense. More problamatic, we have to infer from other data whether or not those risks are being realised in militaries which have already instituted the poilicy we are discussing.

In addition, the policy we are considering changing, as a result of its very existence, actively prevents much of the behaviors we have established would have a negative effect on unit cohesiveness. That is to say the "Don't tell" part of DADT, makes the penalties for sexual harrasment so severe, and so much more likely to lead to a negative consequence for homosexuals than it does for heterosexuals, that in many ways it is DADT itself, which may be responsible for the lack of problems thus far. Its possible that DADT limits the problem behavior of homosexuals in such a way as to give straight sodliers a flase sense of comfot as things currently stand. In other words if a male commander sexually harrasses a female subordinate, he is far less likely to get in trouble or get kicked out of the military, even if the charge is proven to be true, than if a male commander is accused of sexually harrasing a male subordinate. Were DODT to be repealed however, this would no longer be the case, and as a result I would have to expect an increase in instances of male to male sexual harrasement, although not an increase in reports of such. This would have the effect of creating more friction and difficulty between homsexual and heterosexual members and thus reducing effectiveness.


The problem is, as I'm sure anyone who has read this entire entry can see, not so much the expectation of problems resulting from DADT, so much as the uncertainity as to whether or not any problems will occur or whether or not they already are. When coupled with the importance of the institution in question, and its well justified need for cohesion, logic would seem to dictate that only a truly compelling reason would justify a potentially dangerous change. Unless and untill those uncertanties can be illuminated, I simply cant find your arguments compelling enough to be a reason to change policies.

Or to put it another way Scott, while the experiences of those 24 militaries is a good start, it will require more evidence over a longer period of time before repealing DADT can really be considered rational.

One way to address this might be to institute a limited policy under which homosexual soldiers could come out, but upon doing so would be transferred to seperate "gay units" (god that sounds like a horrible pun but wasnt meant to be) similar to those Alexander of Macedonia was said to have formed. Men show valor in combat not so much because of great bravery but because they fear diminishing themselves in the eyes of their compatriots more than they fear the consequences of combat, by all accounts this trend was magnified when ones buddy was also ones husband.

However I just think we need a lot more datra before we can determine what the negative effects, if any, of openly gay men and women serving in integrated units with hetersexual men and women would be.

Stereotypes, Caricatures, and Reality.

Mad Thinker Scott has a great post reacting to an article by Perry Moore over at his Blog in which he argues that a gay character shouldn't be considered "offensive" merely because the portrayal of said character conforms to some stereotypes of gay behavior. Essentially his argument boils down to the fact that many of the gay stereotypes are based on the behavior of actual people, and as such finding a character who exhibits said traits offensive is tantamount to finding those people offensive. In doing so he makes a point I wish more people understood.

In many ways a stereotype is nothing more than a caricature, that is to say a magnification of the pre-existing traits which help us identify people or things. If your ears are slightly bigger than the norm a caricature would enbiggen them to dumbotastic proportions but if your ears were not any bigger than most peoples a caricaturist would choose a different trait to magnify. For example a caricature of Barack Obama which didn't have big ears or a caricature of Jay Leno which didn't have a big chin probably wouldn't be recognizable as such. Its the observation inherent in the caricature which makes it effective.

The only major difference between the two is that a caricature magnifies the traits of a person while a stereotype magnifies the most often seen traits of given group. In both cases however, the traits being magnified must actually exist and be recognizable. The reason we have the stereotype of Gays as flamboyantly dressed, effeminate men for example is not because all gays are like that, or because no straight men are, but because enough openly gay men exhibit these traits that we recognise what is being caricatured immediately. If every gay man dressed in jeans and work shirts, was an ultimate fighting enthusiast, and had a goatee, our stereotype of gays would be very different than it is.

The point I'm making is that all stereotypes, like all myths, have at least a grain of truth at their core. This should be a self evident fact, but for many people its not, or at the very least they're not willing to admit that it is if the stereotype is negative. On the other hand if the stereotype is positive then most have little difficulty accepting that it is based on observable traits. As an example very few people would feel comfortable saying that the stereotype of Blacks as violent criminals exists because Blacks commit a disproportionately high number of violent crimes, yet few would show the same reticence in stating that the stereotype that Asians are good at math is based on the fact that the Asians are disproportionately represented in math heavy disciplines. In other words most people simply don't like expressing ideas that make them look like a istist asshole.

In and of itself this is not a problem. The problem arises when activists attempt to either deny the connection between observation and stereotype completely, or attempt to penalise those who portray a member of a given group in a way that "reinforces" said stereotype. It becomes a problem because any attempt to portray a member of a given group accurately will almost inevitably involve some stereotypes. And predictably, when those stereotypes are shown, those who consider themselves to be activists for that group will call it offensive. The writer is then left with the choice of either altering his portrayal of the character in question so as to reject the stereotype or accepting that people will consider him a bigot. Most writers chose the former, and the cumulative effect can lead to concepts which are irrational being accepted as rational.

As an example take the character Lady Shiva. A perfect embodiment of the idea that a woman can be just as good of a fighter as a man, current DC cannon lists her as the DCU's greatest martial artist. While there's no reason a woman can't become a highly skilled martial artist or become even more skilled than her male counterparts, skill can only do so much. As every man instinctively knows, Size Matters.

Now think about this in the context of Batman Vs Lady Shiva. A ridiculously skilled Martial Artist himself, he is usually considered to be the second or third most skilled Martial Artist in the DCU. In other words the differences in skill between Batman and Lady Shiva are negligible. However, in the issues where Batman and lady Shiva fight; she is shown as being able to not only hold her own, but in some cases to actually defeat him easily. The problem is Batman still outweighs her by at least 50-100lbs of muscle, and has a sizable reach advantage. Now if Batman's martial skills were substantially less than her own (as in the case of say Black Canary Vs Green Arrow) these advantages wouldn't be worth much, but since their skill levels are comparable they should be damn near insurmountable. To paraphrase Anita Blake "A good big guy beats a good little guy" Or to put it another way Cynthia Rothrock is a great martial artist who could probably beat the living hell out of James Gandolfini but if she fought Chuck Norris she would get her ass kicked.

Now this should not be an offensive nor a controversial concept, yet somehow it is. Since the writers know if they portray this accurately they would be accused of being sexist, they intentionally go in the opposite direction. As a result, instead of Shiva being overpowered by Batman or fighting him differently than she would fight Black Canary, we are shown a Lady Shiva who fights batman by attacking his strengths, rather than his weaknesses. More to the point, since the writers have been doing this for years if not decades in an attempt not to be sexist, its become SOP for female martial artists in the DCU to fight in such a manner.

Why is this a problem you ask? After all Superhero Comics are inherently unrealistic and if I can accept that in comics men can fly, shoot lasers from their eyes, or juggle planets, why should it matter that female martial artists are shown winning fights in a manner that would quickly get them killed in real life? The reason is that in doing so, the writers are reinforcing the idea that the only way for a woman to be shown as being as dangerous as a man is for her to be unnaturally strong. Which implies that a woman who isn't can't be dangerous. Just as Perry Moore's article implies people who are stereotypically gay can't really be heroes and thus essentially marginalises those who are, requiring Lady Shiva to be as strong as a man physically essentially marginalises every female martial artist who isn't.

Now feminists like to talk about how fictional portrayals can cause a problem by creating unrealistic expectations. I don't personally buy that theory, but for the sake of argument lets assume its true; In what way is sending a message that in order to compete women must be something their not and for most, will never be, in any way positive? Doesn't making wonder woman 6'2" and giving all Amazons super strength imply that real woman aren't good enough to live up to amazonian standards? And given that Amazons are supposed to be representative of the feminine ideal in the DCU what does that say?

Whats even more interesting is that the same writers and artists who portray size as irrelevant when women are fighting men don't hesitate to show size as a major factor in fights between two men. Robin for example never went toe to toe with Twoface, or The Joker, instead he was portrayed as using leverage, speed, agility, and skill to overcome the size deficit. The reason of course is that when two men are fighting, there's no concern that an accurate portrayal will be considered offensive.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here, is that by creating a climate in which the writers fear sending the wrong message and then tieing the definition of a wrong message to whether or not the characters portrayal is consistent with a stereotype, we end up with characters whose existence tells those same people we are trying to respect, that they aren't worthy of respect, because of who they are. If a writer attempts to make sure he didn't engage in the stereotype that Blacks like fried chicken, by specifically writing all his black characters as hating fried chicken, then wouldn't that actually send the message than any Black who does like fried chicken either isn't "really" black or can't be a hero? Likewise if he specifically makes all his homosexual characters dress like Mad Thinker Scott, isn't he implying that any who dress like Harry Hay aren't good enough to be heroes? And if so, is that what we as comic fans want?

Now me, Id rather see a DCU where Micheal Holt is allowed to like chicken, where the Pied Piper is allowed to be flamboyant and effete, and Lady Shiva is allowed to be less physically strong yet still just as dangerous as Batman. That doesn't mean that every character should follow stereotypes, I don't think I would find that very interesting. It just means that writers shouldn't be made afraid of giving a character a trait that could be considered stereotypical, and fans shouldn't be so damn quick to blast them if they do. Especially when that stereotype is heavily rooted in reality, and makes sense for the character being written.

Gays in the military.

Recently Columbia university invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. Im sure you've heard about and have an opinion already, I dont care. I'm not interested in talking about that. Lets face it, anything that could be said about the subject probably already has been. What I did find interesting however are some of the arguments that sprung from said incident. Namely the ongoing debate on gays in the military, or to be more specific "Dont ask, Dont tell"

As Im sure anyone whose even moderately computer literate has heard, Ahmadinejad stated (in refernece to homsexuals) "In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon," he said, speaking through an interpreter on a university-wide simulcast. "I don't know who has told you we have it." This, as anyone with half a brain could have predicted, led to much eye-rolling. More to the point, in many quarters it led to renewed deabte about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy the US Government insittutied under Clinton's leadership. (ahmadinejad at columbia + comments on homosexuality in Iran + columbias ban on ROTC = Don't ask don't tell discussion)

So why am I commenting? Well it occured to me, that allowing openly gay men or women to serve in the military would be much like forcing men and women in the US military to sleep and shower together. The main difference being that feminsits would protest the latter.

Forcing straight men to shower, sleep and billet with men they know are gay would be the equivalent of forcing women to do the same with straight men would it not? The US military justifies sexual segregation of such facilites on the assumption that alowing those who can be reasonably expected to have sexual fellings for each other would be counterproductive. So why doesn't this same idea apply to homosexuals? That is to say, if a female soldier could be reasonably expected to be uncomfortable enough showering with straight men as to make the idea of doing so ludicrous, why is the same thinking considered prejudiced when applied to Straight men/Gay men?

I would ask those readers who are gay how comfortable they would be showering with straight women. Or gay women how comfortable they would be showering with straight men. I know for a fact, that feminsits would say forcing women to shower with straight men would "create a hostile workplace" so why doesn't the same logic apply to Straight Men re Gay Men?

The military is a unique institution, unlike civilian work, soldiers are required to share damn near everything. Showers, beds, (ask a navy guy what hotcotting is) toilets, etc. Most of us would have no problems having a problem with coed bathrooms in schools or workplaces, even if we could be guaranteed that the other sex would never harrass us. The very idea of someone "objectifying" us while we were copping a squat is simply disgusting. Yet somehow, when it comes to gays in the military, we ask straight men to endure a level of discomfort we would never dream of attempting to impose on the avergae woman in her workplace. We ask that they willingly, and uncomplainingly, endure a level of scutiny and lecherous viewing (even if only percieved) in their most private moments that the vaginal hive mind would go rabid over if it were even suggested be imposed on women in thier public moments. How great of a disconnect is necessary to believe that it is "offenseive" for a man to see an attractive woman in a skirt and "objectify her" yet somehow believe than a man forced to shower with another man who looks at him in the exact same way while both are naked is not?

I would really, for once, like some comments on this. Specifically if Ragnell, Kalinara, Or Mad Thinker Scott would like to chime in with their POV I would appreciate it.