News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



Tanya Domi: When will LGBT people be free?

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 09:30:00 AM EDT


A hearty welcome again to Tanya Domi, a former Captain in the U.S. Army, who served for 15 years, enlisting as a Private, rising to the rank of Captain before leaving the service honorably. Her latest guest post for the Blend takes on the foot-dragging by the Obama admin on DADT and discusses one of the historic tangible benefits of service to this country that traditionally have brought many to sign on -- citizenship.


When will LGBT people be free?

By Tanya L. Domi, former U.S. Army Captain

One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons that hangs on the wall of my study is a cartoon drawing of President Lincoln--the iconic image of him standing outside a command tent during the Civil War speaking to General Ulysses S. Grant saying: “Should I free the gays too?”

This cartoon amuses me while it simultaneously angers and saddens me too.

In the early days after Barack Obama was elected president, the media engorged itself in writing endlessly about the historical comparisons of Presidents Lincoln and Obama—book ending Lincoln’s emancipation of the slaves with the election of Obama as our first black president. But in the comparison of the emancipation of the slaves to “freeing the gays,” which is amusingly depicted in a New Yorker cartoon, looks less likely to happen with every passing day, whatever promises Obama has proffered.

Obama does not demonstrate a desire to ‘free’ gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly, despite America’s two wars, in spite of his authority to enact a stop loss policy urged by a significant block of Congressional members and advocacy groups; despite study after study since 1959 that reflects gay soldiers do serve admirably, quietly, and sometimes openly while avoiding investigations at every turn when fear consumes them in protecting the very essence of individual privacy.

Today, America’s military engagements appear to be going south in Iraq and Afghanistan as recent violent up ticks have occurred in both locations. Despite an increasing tragic loss of American lives, gay and lesbian soldiers continue to be discharged at the rate of about two per day, according to the Service Members Legal Defense Network.

The Pentagon twiddles its thumbs on the question of opening gay soldiers serving, while pushing back against Obama’s expressed desire to include them in the ranks. Nonetheless, while the joint chiefs continue to throw out perfectly good soldiers for being gay, they have also called for a dramatic increase of soldiers to be deployed to Afghanistan. Their actions simply defy logic and undermine national security. The military’s decision-making worries me about our ability to win in Afghanistan in general, but I digress.

All of these facts were put into stark relief for me when Vice-President Joe Biden traveled to Iraq over the July 4th holiday to visit with soldiers and to preside over a naturalization ceremony in Baghdad of 237 soldiers. Many foreign nationals who enlist in the military today are being offered a fast-track path incentive to U.S. citizenship for serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Domi continues below the fold.

Pam Spaulding :: Tanya Domi: When will LGBT people be free?

Good for these newest citizens, who have put their lives on the line and in exchange they become citizens of the United States of America. I do not begrudge them because I know how special it is to be an American, having lived abroad and witnessed so many horrors around the world.But in my awareness about the ceremony and its obvious importance, enough to include the Vice President and the U.S. commanding general presiding, I recognized that as lesbian and gay Americans we are less equal than our newest fellow citizens sworn in on July 4th, the day our country honors its independence.

It has been a time honored tradition in the U.S. to enter the military, gain greater responsibilities and self-respect, as well as tangible benefits for that service, including freedom from slavery and in many cases citizenship.During the Revolutionary War, both enslaved and free blacks fought the British for America’s independence. Nearly 20 percent were freed for their service, but many remained enslaved for decades to come. During the Civil War, freed and enslaved blacks unofficially enlisted in the Union Army, including 94,000 Southern slaves who fled to the North.After Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation was issued on Jan. 1, 1893, allowing blacks to officially serve, although the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision--the legal basis for separate but equal, was the law and practice of the land, until at least half way through the 20th century.

Later on, “Buffalo” soldiers (named by American Indians who believed they resembled buffalo with their dark skin and curly black hair), black soldiers who served in the cavalry during the Indian wars in the West were granted citizenship upon entry into the military.

As many Americans know, the Tuskegee Airmen served during World War II in a segregated Air Force aviation unit, serving with distinction and bravery. And yet, the North and South remained segregated to its black citizens and soldiers, despite their bravery or valor. However, President Harry Truman possessed the courage and political will to racially desegregate the military in 1948. It took many years, well into the 1960s for all military units to be desegregated. All the while, foreign nationals were awarded citizenship for service in the military—thousands of Filipinos have served gaining U.S. citizenship via military service, for example.

Today, the military boasts of its advances for racial equality in the U.S. and rightfully so. But when will gays and lesbians be included in America’s tradition of promoting the contributions of its newest citizens and the military’s official embrace of America’s unique diversity? I posit that until the day we can openly serve in uniform, we will always be considered less than other Americans who are allowed to serve and enjoy the fruits of honor earned.Until the political and legal construction of negatively defined gay sexuality in the military is eliminated by public policy, all gays and lesbians will be viewed as ‘less’ than our fellow citizens and also sexually deviant (despite Lawrence v. Texas).

So you may not support the current wars, you may even be a pacifist and this issue may not be important to you--but know and understand how our political history is constructed to advance the citizenship of those who serve. As long as we are held outside of this tradition, prohibited from accepting the responsibilities and enjoying its benefits of military service, we will also be kept away from the center of our society.Thus, without the right to serve, whether we do or not, we are unable to fully exercise what the founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence:“…they are endowed by their creator to certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” In its essence, the Declaration explains that Americans desire to be free women and men and will organize a government to affect this outcomer. To be free from tyranny is America’s founding and central principle that soldiers fought and died for 233 years ago.There is a timeless quality to freedom, without boundaries or differences, people all across this globe yearn to be free.We as gay Americans deeply embrace this principle and declare it’s our turn now.


Tanya Domi is a former U.S. Army Captain and served 15 years, enlisting as a Private before leaving the Army honorably as a Captain in 1990.  Domi teaches human rights at Columbia University as an adjunct professor of international and public affairs and lives in the City of New York. 

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
BRAVA!

Teach! Such brilliant and informed essays like this are an endangered species nowadays, and fellow Hoosier Ms. Domi is an unsung heroine in the long battle against the ban on gays in the military. Becoming a WAC at 19, she survived a vicious lesbian witch hunt at Fort Devins in 1974-75. [Military homohatred has always been far more disproportionately directed toward women than men.] And was subjected to, and fought against, sexual harassment that included being fondled by a male noncom officer. Her choice to leave the military came after a second investigation as a lesbian in 1987.

And the wisdom and insight in her forceful words above are not just from the perspective of a military veteran but a veteran of the previous battle to get a new President to keep his promises. In 1993, as director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Military Freedom Initiative, she was one of the leaders, along with David Mixner, Tracy Thorne, Bob Hattoy, and others, of the fight to overturn the ban, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, appearing numerous times on television, and participating in the cross-country voter education "Tour of Duty." Over six weeks, they visited 32 cities in 23 states, but the tour, in fact all efforts by gays, was no match for a rabid coalition of civilian, military, political, and religious homohaters and a cowardly president and his slimy, controversy-allergic advisor.

Class: can you match which of these things are still true today?

....................................................................................



I applaud this essay but I think it leaves a little something out
I don't think hindsight is ever 20/20. One of the reasons I say this is that too often we use the shinning abbreviated examples of history to denigrate those who represent the realities of our time. A great example would be comparing Lincoln's emancipation of slaves to Obama's desire to be a fierce advocate for Gay Americans. The truth is the similarities in the two story lines are much closer than many people realize. I believe that in both cases there is a process that goes from start to conclusion. At the start for Lincoln he said this:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

This was not to say that Lincoln did not have strong feelings about the immorality of slavery. However, like any good President, his focus and priority was more to the country as a whole in the midst of one of its greatest eras of crisis than it was to the issues of any individual group of people. Though to his credit over time and through trying circumstances Lincoln's view would change and his priorities would develop greater propriety for those enslaved. I believe that in today's time history is definitely repeating itself. Over and over the level of injustice that we experience as a people group is being felt and understood by a greater percentage of the population of this nation and also by its leaders.

Obama is in the same position as Lincoln was in the beginning of the Civil War. He understands to some extent the injustice being heaped on us as a people but he is as afraid as Lincoln was to take his eyes off of the development of the Union in order to address those injustices. It will take time but like Lincoln, Obama will eventually come to see that his goals for the United States run parallel to his desire to emancipate our people group. Much of what the nation is seeking in its desire to be more economically viable and resourcefully independent boils down to the oppressions and injustices heaped on one people group and the intransigence created by those doing the oppression. The question isn't when will we be free as a people group because when one group suffers in America every American suffers. That was the lesson of the Civil war and the same lesson we can learn from it today without starting another one. Newly freed minds make for a great deal of entrepreneurship and creativity. Families secure in their rights become more active in securing their community. Funding used to sustain political stances can be freed up and redirected. People free to serve will undoubtedly begin to serve freely. Destroying shortages and reinvigorating our armed forces currently taxed to their limits. When "we" are free America will also be free.  I hope our President is listening.  

Always thinking about it...


Jessica H. Christ

Over the past months, I have watched a flood, deep and wide, of polluted water flow in the name of defending the willful betrayal of his promises to the LGBT community by Barack Obama, but this might just qualify as the most nauseating piece of sophomoric nonsense yet for the sweep of its demeaning ignorance and arrogance.

While I am one of those who will not suffer the fools who hurl, "How dare a gay person compare their struggle to those of blacks," because I am talking about today and they are invariably speaking historically.

BUT permit this Caucasian to say that the suggestion that "Obama is in the same position as Lincoln was in the beginning of the Civil War" is not just a criminally offensive distortionn of history, not just an insult to the memory of a certified great man versus one whose greatness is childishly asserted a priori, but an outrageous and indefensible and wounding insult to those whose violent enslavement was then a fact. If a people's heritage can be raped, you've just done it. That it is done, yet again, in a effort to excuse the rank and needless cowardice of Barack Obama nauseates me.

Gays in 2009 are not only not as demonized as we were even in 1993 when DADT was passed; we are not 1/1000th as demonized as blacks were when Truman had the balls to order racial integration of the military in 1948.

But if they were considered and legally treated as the lowest class of Americans in 1948, they were considered and legally treated as animals during Lincoln's time. For all the ruthless lies and sturm and drang of today's Antigay Industry, we will never see a single state secede and declare war on the rest of the nation rather than treat gays as legal equals as the Confederacy did rather than emancipate slaves.

Obama faces NONE of the potentially irreparable tears to the social fabric over LGBT equality that even Kennedy and Johnson did, let alone Truman, and, most of all Lincoln did in relation to racial equality.

MY GOD! When will this lobotomized personality cult stop looking at the world through the aperture of Obama's ass?


[ Parent ]
Well, we aren't as demonized as we were in 1948
because we weren't even talked about, I disagree with you on that count.

But the comaprison of Obama to Lincoln in this respect is...well pretty offensive.

I think this essay does a great job, actually, of charting the arc of racial equality in the military and comparing it to the trajectory of gay and lesbian soldiers.


[ Parent ]
The Arc of Racial Equality in the Military
Well, I tried to lay that out Kevinchi and it seems you understand that...as well as make the case that many, many Americans have acquired their citizenship through military service.  Right now, a foreign national who happens to be lesbian, gay or bi-sexual, would be risking an opportunity for citizenship if he or she enlisted and were discovered to be gay...which would lead to a discharge.  

I could have laid out a case on the arc of women's equality in the military.  In fact, the first woman to serve in the Army, was a black woman, who disguised herself as a man during the Revolutionary War.  

I will also assert my thesis about freedom--when only 20 states and D.C. have job protection laws; when we can not marry in 44 states; when the government does not recognize our relationships for inheritance and social security; when we do not necessarily have the right to adopt children at all, or provide for a second parent adoption; when we are attacked and sometimes murdered for being LGBT or are prohibited from serving in the military, then I would say that we are unable to exercise our civil rights (which basically don't exist at the federal level, one exception is the hate crimes enhancement penalty) or more to the point, unable to exercise our universal human rights, thus unable to fully participate in our country IAW Art. 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:  1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives and most importantly 2) Everyone one has the right of equal access to public service in his country...and so on.  America cannot truly be a free democracy if it bans a certain distinct group of people from making some of the most intimate decisions of human existence--for example, marriage.  

So my comparison is a conversation about what it means to be a citizen when you are gay...we are second-class and less equal than other citizens.  Thus we are not free.

Tanya



Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


[ Parent ]
I understand all of that
as well as the arc of equality. I was reacting a little more to the direct comparison of Lincoln/blacks to Obama/gays in kudo451's comment.

I agree that the MSM media started much of the comparisons of Obama to Lincoln not simply because of the race issue but also because Obama is from Illinois (then again, Obama did much to foster it himself). I think that the better comparison is to FDR, personally. That's the era where the second-class citizenship analogies work much, much better in this case (as opposed to a time when black people were only 3/5 of a person and even that was only for census purposes).


[ Parent ]
Not a Problem
Kevinchi, I actually had included a remark that stated Obama was not discouraging the comparison in my original draft as well...I do not believe on any level that there is an equal comparison between the black slave experience in this country and being a member of the LGBT community as a white person. I was also reflecting in this piece that citizenship has been acquired through military service since the beginning of the country. Our community never directly discusses what it means to be a LGBT citizen in a country when much of who we are, or how we relate, or what we fear in terms of losing jobs, family and friends for coming out or in making decisions about the most intimate aspects of our lives, is limited, banned, prohibited, not protected etc. In this case, the military service has delivered citizenship to those who have enlisted over the course of two centuries and through many wars. So what does that mean to be truly a second-class citizen in America where one is prohibited from serving in uniform?  Many people in the gay movement in the 1990s did not care for the military issue and they certainly did not want to deal with the marriage issue either (the Hawaii legislature began hearings in 1993).

I appreciate your comments and insights.  Thanks for the civil discussion.

Tanya

Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


[ Parent ]
No, THANK YOU for your service
As I stated, it was a kick ass essay and I do agree with much that you wrote.

[ Parent ]
I'm not defending Obama
I was merely speaking to an interesting comparison raised by the article itself. And I don't think as an African-American or Gay American who also happens to be a veteran as well, that it is wrong to simply compare two men of history who just happen to share some of the very same issues about their dealings with a minority group.

You're aggrandizing a few of my statements doesn't invalidate my opinions and as far as nausea is concerned, I suggest you deal with that through medication. The point is that there are comparisons that can be made between gays and blacks. No one is suggesting the issues are parallel in degree on either side, nevertheless they do exist. I am African-American and I am gay and I have been a veteran who has had to deal with the discrimination of all of these things in various ways and if I find these comparable in my own life, how is it then wrong for me to use my own experience and reach out to a history that belongs to me as well as every American and note the things I see in it from my perspective.

I was in no way justifying The Actions of the Obama Administration, but I won't apologize for wanting to reach some understanding of it from my own perspective. You'll forgive if I choose not to over simplify him as a villain and an enemy considering he reflects so many aspects of me and the people I come from and the hope he exemplifies to them. And the point about Lincoln at the beginning of the Civil War and Obama now? They where both Presidents dealing with a major crisis at the beginning of their first term. Lincoln would be defined by emancipation and the civil war. Obama is likely to be defined by Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Economy and Gay Rights. Or had you forgotten in all your verbosity to slam the administration that our military is still fighting in two major conflicts?  


Always thinking about it...


[ Parent ]
Leaving a Little Something Out
Interesting comments Kudo 451 and I would not necessarily disagree with you--in fact I agree with a number of your thoughtful comments. But you must concede that there is something illogical about throwing out good soldiers, while lowering standards, including felon waivers for incoming soldiers, while simultaneously scrambling for more soldiers to send to Afghanistan. There just aren't enough soldiers to meet our national security needs right now...we are about two divisions short, the two divisions we eliminated during the 1990s.  Historically, going back to WWII, discharges of gay and lesbian servicemembers have definitely declined and then up tick during peace.  We will have to wait and see how discharge numbers shake out.  I recall when General McPeak, then chief of staff of the Air Force in 1992 testified in Senate hearings on changing the 1945 law prohibiting women from flying combat aircraft, that he would rather have a less skilled male pilot than a more qualified female pilot flying a combat aircraft.  Well all that has been proven wrong, just as we all know that gay soldiers serve admirably and effectively.  I would agree with you that Obama faces a number of crises--the economy and on the national security front.  Afghanistan is not a hopeful situation, nor is Iraq.  Either of these crises, their success or failure will define his presidency. Whether gays serve openly or not, will not break his presidency, but losing Afghanistan will certainly be a grave error and could preclude a second term, depending on how the situation evolves there. Clearly, it takes a long time to achieve a legal foundation for equality and non-discrimination.  But there is no good time to bring these discussions into the political domain.  We should not flinch from pushing Obama and anyone else who is in a position affecting public policy--not now or anytime in the future.  

Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


Captain, thank you for both your service and for this article
I will leave it as follows:

I liked it.
It was well written.
It was informative to me personally, not having served in the armed forces of the United States and having been living as a straight woman when I did serve elsewhere.

Many thanks;
Maureen Hennessey

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid


[ Parent ]
Oh I absolutely do agree
It is wrong to see soldiers thrown out and mistreated and I don't think there is a justification for it at all. And when we are done integrating the LGBT community into the Armed Services we should be sure to finish the fight by restoring and compensating all of those veterans wronged by this policy in the first place. There will be an issue of reparations to deal with.

Besides Lincoln and even Truman had to look to the fact that African Americans where a vital resource and the rest of the nation and the military establishment just couldn't envision that. I think that is very familiar to what is happening now and it is simply silly not to compare the two. One of my points is that being allowed to serve openly and freely would solve many of the problems the military has with recruitment.

In my head I wanted to speak also to the value of solving more problems like offering an avenue of relief for homeless GLBT youth and the opportunities the military would afford them toward personal independence, self reliance and educational opportunities, as well as bonding and structure so needed in the early stages of adulthood. But I didn't want to make the essay any longer than It was.

Always thinking about it...


[ Parent ]
THIS- DADT is NOT an "elite issue"
I wanted to speak also to the value of solving more problems like offering an avenue of relief for homeless GLBT youth and the opportunities the military would afford them toward personal independence, self reliance and educational opportunities,

There is one poster hear at the Blend that absolutely pisses me the fu*k off when he labels DADT as an issue of elites.

What you site here is exactly the way so many black people chose to go into the Armed Services, including most of my family.

DADT is not an issue for the elites


[ Parent ]
Go ahead, blame me for starting this - but....
When will LGBT people be free?

...

One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons that hangs on the wall of my study is a cartoon drawing of President Lincoln--the iconic image of him standing outside a command tent during the Civil War speaking to General Ulysses S. Grant saying: "Should I free the gays too?"

This cartoon amuses me while it simultaneously angers and saddens me too.

Funny - Domi's piece has the same effect on me...

Well - the last two of those three emotions anyway.

Speaking about DADT as an issue for "gays" or "gay and lesbian soldiers" or "gay soldiers" or "lesbian and gay Americans" or "[those] negatively defined gay sexuality" or "gays and lesbians" or (my favorite) "we" - the seven separate unquestionably-non-trans-inclusive intonations that she employs - is not inaccurate, because DADT only addreses gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Tacking 'T' onto the title is an insult - certainly to trans people but, if she was actually intending to be inclusive, herself by demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding not only about the policy of DADT but also the gay-trans political dynamic in the non-military world.  Is Domi an aspring A-gay who really does not give a damn but thinks that tacking on that 'T' amounts to substantive inclusion of us as people or the concerns of those of us who have served in the military, are serving or desire to?  Is she a Raymond-Daly-Greer-Chiland-Bindel-Bailey-Dreger-Vincent acolyte who doesn't really believe that there are transsexuals?  Is she an Aravosisist who believes trans-everything has no legitimate connection to GLB?

Go ahead.

Flame me.

But I defy anyone and everyone to point out how the body of her column actually addressed - or for that matter even acknowledged - the fourth of the four prongs of the question she posed with her title.

If you don't mean it - or understand it - don't say it.

>^..^<


Because

if KatRose can't find an insulT she'll imagine one.

[ Parent ]
I've yet to find the need to conjure up an insult - or a transphobe - with my imagination


>^..^<

[ Parent ]
I don't know,
claiming to be speaking on behalf of someone and then ignoring their needs is pretty unavoidably insulting.

[ Parent ]
Not gonna flame you
But, if she hadn't included the T in the article title.. wouldn't you be upset anyways?

For many people simply adding that T to LGB is the status quo... it just ends up there.  A lot of people don't have a deep understanding of transgender issues or how to include them in their essays or plans of action.

I don't think that Domi's article should be taken in offense.. she's writing from her experience.  Her lack of inclusion of transgender issues is a valid point to bring up, but not with name calling.  

EVERY article posted on here will have one group that feels their specific needs are left out; we have a lot of ground to cover.  It's our job as specific parts of the community to discuss how we are to be included... not just call her an "Aravosisist."

I understand that you're pissed, and it's actually good.  What I'd really like to see out of it is some good writing about how DADT affects Ts.  


[ Parent ]
No I Did Not Include Transgender People
I will tell everyone on this blog thread that I never met a transgender person in the military.  And I think that while lgb people can hide in the military, I doubt very much a transgender person could hide.  At one time women disguised themselves as men during the Revolutionary War and even in the Civil War--but that was a different time in our society and people could hide their gender--no more--open showers and living in the field.

Should transgender people be allowed to serve--of course. But I will be the first to admit that I know very little about how the current policy of DADT affects transgendered persons. I would also suggest that at the age of 17 years old, a young person can enlist with a parent's approval.  While many transgender persons may know they feel they are a different gender at a young age, they have usually not gone through sex reassignment surgery at that point in their life--to reach emanicpation as an adult at 18 years old, to go to college, or go to work  or other training, takes up a lot of someone's emotional and financial energy. And as every transgender person knows it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through the surgery, which includes living openly in the gender desired.  Going through that process in the military is something I could not imagine in this very moment.  We know that LGB people are already serving, but I doubt seriously that trans people are currently serving.  I have heard of trans people retiring (men mostly) and then going through the change after they retire. So it is not my intention to insult transgender people, but as Flyerfier has said, I am writing from my experience and in the policy realm, it was never discussed during the 1990s.  I would defer to the current policy experts at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for further exploration of this important issue.

Tanya

Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


[ Parent ]
That circles back to what I said above
"If you don't mean it - or understand it - don't say it."

If you're worried about this setting a 'damned if I do, damned if I don't' scenario, refer the matter to those of the previous generation who legitimized our exclusion from our own movement.  They are to us what Sam Nunn, et. al., are to GLBs in the military.

>^..^<


[ Parent ]
And there's the rub...

"If you don't mean it - or understand it - don't say it."

Every post I've ever read by you screams that La Vie KatRose is one that involves a chip on your shoulder the size of Alaska...ever eager to spring upon and attack anyone whom YOU declare ex post transphobic like the grudge you seem still to be embracing er carrying against the AntiChrist er Barney Frank long after other trans advocates have moved on to judging him by what he's doing and saying TODAY.

You COULD have chosen to give Ms. Domi the benefit of the doubt and simply addressed relative issues informationally, but, no, you went for the indictment; a way, as they say, neither to win friends nor influence enemies, but there are some people who care more about working out their personal demons with their claws on the backs of others than teaching, building alliances, and creating change.


[ Parent ]
Actually...
But, if she hadn't included the T in the article title.. wouldn't you be upset anyways?

I doubt seriously if I would have - and, even if I said something, it would not have been what I did say.

As I stated, strictly speaking, if the issue is DADT, then it is proper to only speak of GLB.

I'll leave it to the trans veterans on the list to talk about the other matter - of how repeal of DADT would not help trans people per se.

>^..^<


[ Parent ]
Veteran musing
I know I'm not the trans veteran, but since this is my area of policy expertise, please allow me a moment to muse, KatRose. And please forgive any gaffes, since I'm still learning proper transgender speakage. I don't mean to offend, and if I do, I apologize in advance.

I know only one active duty person who identifies as not-cisgender. He identifies primarily as a genderqueer male. Trouble is, he's also bi. We all know how orientation and gender identity get confused in the straight, cis public mind; people who aren't "family" don't understand the difference. I'm sure Autumn and other vets will agree with me when I say that transgender people who serve in the military run the risk of being persecuted and discharged for their perceived sexual orientation rather than their gender identity. So yes, DADT DOES affect transgender people who serve, even if they are not living as their target gender. Repealing it would bring a little more safety to transgender troops, even though accomplishing - or even beginning - an actual transition while on active duty isn't currently feasible.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi


[ Parent ]
It would be a false sense of safety
Repealing it would bring a little more safety to transgender troops
Unfortunately, this is an argument similar to the 'non-inclusive ENDA will help trans people' argument - similar in that, even though some people who say it may truly believe it, the wording of the applicable laws, regs, etc., won't bear it out.

>^..^<

[ Parent ]
I dunno, Katrina
I'm not sure that the military opposition to transgender persons would be based on anything other than homophobia. Could you explain why you think it would be?

If you want allies, you have to be an ally.

[ Parent ]
Lawrence v Texas
They don't update the Uniform Code of Military Justice to reflect Supreme Court rulings on civil law.  
Obama could stop DADT discharges overnight with a stroke of a pen, but the Pentagon would object because of the "old law" written in the Uniform Code of Military Justice against homosexuality.  Homophobe General Peter Pace received a Medal of Freedom from Bush.  Those homophobic military decision makers are influential, alive and well.  We just lost yet another great champion for our DADT justice, Senator Edward Kennedy.  When will we be free ?  
That's certainly underlying the theme of the march in October.
I would wear my old U.S. Navy HM2 uniform, but I have put on a few pounds.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

Hmmm

There is nothing I'm aware of in the UCMJ about "homosexuality." In their Trogoldytic way, it does officially ban all types of "sodomy"...gay and straight, but is very rarely enforced today, though it often gets thrown in to amplify contextual charges such as fraternization. Still, while as I recall the potential penalty is five years, the few sentences that have come down in recent years appear to have averaged six months.

Nevertheless, it does need to be eliminated entirely.

And while Lawrence v. didn't result in that because the courts avoid interfering with military law as much as possible, it is frequently cited and influences military sodomy cases.



[ Parent ]
Sodomy in the UCMJ
Michael you are right--I believe sodomy is Art. 125 of the UCMJ and it has not been eliminated even though Lawrence v. Texas is the law of the land.  The UCMJ would need to be amended by the Congress, I believe. Again, you are also correct that sodomy is rarely applied anymore; however, it can be used as a add-on charge to aggravated sexual assault or rape and fraternization, as you have stated. I remember Larry Meholick who did 10 years of hard time at Leavenworth for "sodomy" under the military gay ban of homosexuality. That was only 16 years or so ago.  It would be interesting to know if there has been a case involving a gay discharge with a sodomy charge under DADT.  Do you know of any such case?  I know that not everyone has received a honorable discharge under DADT and these vets have lost benefits due to receiving less than a honorable discharge.  DADT is not as "compassionate" as some would believe. Indeed, it is pernicious and has a deleterious effect on unit cohesion--by maintaining secrets we build walls between us and other human beings. I believe that anyone who has served for a long period of time (five years or more) impedes emotional development and will retard emotional growth that can lead to a healthy out life as a gay person.  

Many thanks for your kind comments earlier.

Tanya

Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


[ Parent ]
I only know of "prejudicial sodomy" cases...

...which I discovered in research to respond to earlier threads here in which 125 came up, and I've repasted below including the explanation what "prejudicial sodomy" means. Alas, I'm not a lawyer, but will look for any instances of discharges post DADT that involve just, as it were,  unprejudicial sodomy, though, as you know, no homosexual act, nor even expressed interest, is required for discharge for, under DADT: Gay = Intent = Discharge.

The most intriguing recent development is the revelation Sunday that though Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach admitted to "having sex with" the guy who outed him to the Air Force in some surreal campaign to stop an alleged ring of gay men in the military who were intentionally infecting others with HIV [Nota Bene, Dear Readers, NOT TRUE!], USAF investigators declared that he had NOT violated 125!

Or rather that the press hasn't thought to ask,"How is that possible?" It is, depending upon what kind of "sex" they engaged in. As long as no minor is involved, and there is consent, 125 bans only anal and oral sex. It is all the more a measure of Fehrenbach's heroism that he knew taking his fight public could invariably lead to such discussion, as well as revelation of the false charge of rape. But it explains [the accuser's determination], as I anticipated though not a melodramatically, why the Air Force proceeded with his discharge [even before he "went public"] when he was the definition of the kind of gay servicemember whom they often choose to quietly leave alone.

It's great to know that you're still involved in the battle, Tanya.

------------

As, officially, 125 makes no distinction as to sexual orientation, any effort to repeal 125 should focus on the privacy rights of all, not just gays. That the military has not seen fit to at least decriminalize STRAIGHT sodomy [as some civilian jurisdictions did while leave gay sodomy illegal pre-Lawrence] is a hymn to just how Troglodytic much of the mindset of the powers that be in the Pentagon remains-particularly given that its actual application is now so situationally determined.

Nevertheless, in the ranks, there has been a great deal of softening of its application-even before Lawrence. Most prosecutions under Article 125 have involved what is called "prejudicial sodomy." That is, the act involved circumstances that were "prejudicial to good order and discipline," e.g., between an officer and an enlisted soldier or in the barracks where others may have witnessed the act. Sodomy ITSELF is rarely prosecuted.

Further, while 125 allows for a five year prison sentence, the cases referenced below typically involved only a six-month sentence. And, a clear, if peculiar and illogical, trend in the military courts indicates that THEY don't like the sodomy ban itself, and have been upholding 125 convictions not based on the act of sodomy but the circumstances surrounding it. [Lawrence has exceptions itself, e.g., consensuality and age of consent.]

While the effort to eliminate 125 [which Obama supported during his campaign] should continue, albeit cautiously, we should NOT unnecessarily conflate the two. No good can come from "forcing" Congress to address both issues simultaneously. There is NO need to combine it with the effort to repeal DADT. There are instances of foreign militaries and domestic police forces opening themselves to gays while local gay sodomy bans remained, for a time, on the books.

Remarkably, in United States v. Marcum, even the twisted, rabidly homophobic Charles Moskos-the chief civilian member of the team of architects of DADT-told the court that, while he still support DADT itself, "as long as prohibitions against sexual conduct on base as well as fraternization remain in effect, decriminalizing sodomy would not harm the military."

The case was additionally significant for this discussion because the court ruled that Lawrence COULD apply to the military, but upheld Marcum's conviction because his oral "sodomy" was with a subordinate. A similar conviction occurred shortly afterward in United States v. Stirewalt...again, a case of heterosexual "sodomy" and superior/subordinate.

Nevertheless, because Bullock's heterosexual oral "sodomy" was with a civilian, his partial success on appeal [his sentence was reduced from six months to five] benefitted from the "liberty interest" recognized in Marcum through Lawrence-even though, remarkably, his sex act did not adhere to Moskos's other caveat. His sex with a female partner was in the barracks.

Heterosexual Meno's success was similar: Lawrence influenced the decision BUT there was no recognition by the Court that Article 125 was, thereby, wholly unconstitutional.

In an actual HOMOSEXUAL sodomy case, United States v. Barrera, again, while Lawrence "personal interest" was referenced, the conviction was upheld because Barrera had also, later, slapped and attempted to choke his previous sex partner because the latter had revealed their relationship to other Marines. In short, Barrera, like those above, was convicted of sodomy but "not sodomy." !!!!

No one can peel an onion more ways than a judge, and there is no direct line between the Marcum, Bullock, Meno, et al., decisions to one recognizing such unconstitutionality.

Nevertheless, while Obama Inc. has seen fit to defend DADT in court, one wonders if they would now allow a successful court challenge to 125 [as they curiously have the DADT challenge Witt v. US Department of the Air Force while defendind DADT in another brief]-that make allowances exceptions involving the military-unique collateral issues such as partner reporting relationships-to stand.



[ Parent ]
Prejudicial Sodomy
Michael, I have learned something today--a term I have not heard of and interesting that I did not know about the Marcum case.  Great stuff here too.  If you are not a lawyer, you have a great mind. This is great information for people reading this thread.  Thank you again.

Send me your email address at tanya.domi@gmail.com

Tanya

Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


[ Parent ]
You're very kind, Tanya

Here's the link to the Jan 09 article, "Is Article 125, Sodomy, a Dead Letter in Light of Lawrence v. Texas" in the The Army Lawyer which, as I recall, was my source for both the term and the details about the various cases.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Mili...


[ Parent ]
U.S. Code Title 10-654
Michael Bedwell,
I respect your research in these matters.
Educate me. Is not the UCMJ dependant on the U.S. Code?

8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that-
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.


Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.


[ Parent ]
654 is, of course, DADTDPDH

I was responding to your original sentence "...but the Pentagon would object because of the "old law" written in the Uniform Code of Military Justice against homosexuality" which I took to mean the "state of being gay" ...NOT conduct.

Paragraph 13 of 654 that you quoted, states "The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law...." and it is, military sodomy "and other unnatural crimes" being banned explicity by the First Continental Congress when they adopted the British Articles of War some 150 years before homosexuality was banned by military policy [but not in the military legal code that preceded the UCMJ] during WWII.

That is not to imply that those suspected of or admitting to being gay but without any evidence of "sodomy" before that ban were allowed to serve. Even today, military policy and the UCMJ have several broad, subjective categories under which one could be discharged, in the absence of DADT and a clear policy of nondiscrimination, for simply being gay, e.g., "conduct unbecoming."

Strangely, one source [Male-Male Intimacy in Early America-Benemann] reports that of over 3000 documented court martials during the Revolutionary War, only two were sodomy-related and both were for "attempts at," that is, probably, assaults.


[ Parent ]
Thinking of Lincoln and Obama
Lincoln reluctantly freed Black people from Slavery, he wasn't a champion of the Abolitionists. One of our gay presidents freed Black slaves, don't ya think turn about is fair? I personally like the symmetry of that.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner


Whitewashing: Lincoln's reluctance
Lincoln's legacy surrounding slavery and its collateral issues (in this case, miscegenation) is whitewashed and largely misunderstood in the mainstream. A read-through of his speech on the famous Dred Scott decision is quite revealing. A sample:

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agree with the Judge; and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours we shall drop ours, and adopt his. Let us see. In 1850 there were in the United States, 405,751, mulattoes. Very few of these are the offspring of whites and free blacks; nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white masters. A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as an immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into the free States, in any event; but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. In 1850 there were in the free states, 56,649 mulattoes; but for the most part they were not born there they came from the slave States, ready made up. In the same year the slave States had 348,874 mulattoes all of home production. The proportion of free mulattoes to free blacks the only colored classes in the free states is much greater in the slave than in the free states. It is worthy of note too, that among the free states those which make the colored man the nearest to equal the white, have, proportionably [sic] the fewest mulattoes the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the State which goes farthest towards equality between the races, there are just 184 Mulattoes while there are in Virginia how many do you think? 79,775, being 23,126 more than in all the free States together. These statistics show that slavery is the greatest source of amalgamation; and next to it, not the elevation, but the degeneration of the free blacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on the spread of slavery, and the slightest human recognition of the negro, as tending horribly to amalgamation.

There's the "Great Emancipator". What a six-of-one, half-dozen of the other situation! Slavery was crap but Freedom according to Lincoln doesn't sound too rosy either.

I guess in an LGBT context would that equal to, giving gays rights so they can go off and form their own communities (and be easier to ID "on sight") and leave the straights alone? Can we please stop using him as some sort of historical liberal standard? Maybe using an historical figure who opposed slavery on principle, instead of some race-based "ick" factor, just as we want politicans to oppose discrimination against gays based on principle and not on their sexuality-based "ick" factor. Know what I mean?

"Oh, I thought you meant a specific plan. With maps and stuff." -Buffy


Agreed
This is part of the reason that the FDR comparison is much much much better.

[ Parent ]
Aye


"Oh, I thought you meant a specific plan. With maps and stuff." -Buffy

[ Parent ]
Eleanor Roosevelt was a far better advocate for women and people of colour
than the First Lady has been of LGBT's, though she has advocated for us and I d appreciate it. Mrs Roosevelt, though, there was a lady who knew how to take a very public stand!

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

[ Parent ]
But Eleanor Roosevelt only came into her own
as far as her advocacy for black Americans after 3 or so years into Franklin Roosevelt's Administration. And she had a long track record for advocacy that will never be duplicated simply because noone will ever be First Lady longer than her. Also not to be forgotten is that she was a power in the Democratic Party long after FDR died.

Now I can see Michelle Obama following on a similar track that Eleanor Roosevelt did both inside and after her time in the White House.  


[ Parent ]
FDR is a better model for this than Lincoln.
Roosevelt's attitudes to race were tested by the issue of Black (or "Negro") service in the armed forces. The Democratic Party at this time was dominated by Southerners who were opposed to any concession to demands for racial equality. During the New Deal years, there had been a series of conflicts over whether African-Americans should be segregated in the various new government benefits and programs. Whenever a move was made to integrate the races Southern governors or congressmen would complain to Roosevelt, who would intervene to uphold segregation for the sake of keeping his party together. The Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, for example, segregated their work forces by race at Roosevelt's insistence after Southern governors protested at unemployed whites being required to work alongside blacks. Roosevelt's personal racial attitudes were conventional for his time and class. Some historians argue that he nevertheless played a major role in advancing the rights of blacks, and others say it was due to prodding from Eleanor Roosevelt and liberals such as Ickes, Perkins, Hopkins, Mary McLeod Bethune, Aubrey Williams and Claude Pepper. Eleanor had been a very vigorous leader that had impacted the world socially

Roosevelt explained his reluctance to support anti-lynching legislation in a conversation with Walter White of the NAACP. "I did not choose the tools with which I must work. Had I been permitted to choose then I would have selected quite different ones. But I've got to get legislation passed by Congress to save America. The Southerners by reason of the seniority rule in Congress are chairmen or occupy strategic places on most of the Senate and House committees. If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can't take that risk." However, he did move Blacks into important advisory roles, brought them as delegates to the Democratic National Convention for the first time, abolished the two-thirds rule that gave the South veto power over presidential nominations, added a civil rights plank for the first time ever to the 1940 party platform, and included Blacks in the draft with the same rights and pay scales as whites.
In June 1941 Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC). It was the most important federal move in support of the rights of African Americans between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The President's order stated that the federal government would not hire any person based on their race, color, creed, or national origin. The FEPC enforced the order to ban discriminatory hiring within the federal government and in corporations that received federal contracts. Millions of blacks and women achieved better jobs and better pay as a result. The war brought the race issue to the forefront. The Army and Navy had been segregated since the Civil War. But by 1940 the African-American vote had largely shifted from Republican to Democrat, and African-American leaders like Walter White of the NAACP and T. Arnold Hill of the Urban League had become recognized as part of the Roosevelt coalition. In June 1941, at the urging of A. Philip Randolph, the leading African-American trade unionist, Roosevelt signed an executive order establishing the Fair Employment Practice Commission and prohibiting discrimination by any government agency, including the armed forces. In practice the services, particularly the Navy and the Marines, found ways to evade this order - the Marine Corps remained all-white until 1943. In September 1942, at Eleanor's instigation, Roosevelt met with a delegation of African-American leaders, who demanded full integration into the forces, including the right to serve in combat roles and in the Navy, the Marine Corps and the United States Army Air Forces. Roosevelt, with his usual desire to please everyone, agreed, but then did nothing to implement his promise. It was left to his successor, Harry S. Truman, to fully desegregate the armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...


Good Stuff
Kevinchi, good stuff here.  I do remember some of what you have posted from my readings on Roosevelt. Thank you for bringing this information to all of us. Eleanor was a saint and always pushing FDR to do the right thing for blacks and Jews and her best friends were lesbians.

The Navy, of which the Marine Corps belongs, was perhaps the most racist and segregated up through the 1970s even.  Many of the stewards for the officer mess on ships remain Filipino to this very day (some of them serve the president too in the White House). I think the Army is the most equalitarian as officers sleep near their troops in the field, and share close quarters with them during the war.  The Navy is the most orthodox of all the services.

Thanks again.  I will now go back to my Roosevelt books to read more on the Fair Employment Practices Committee.  I forgot that part of history and as you point out, very significant.

Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


[ Parent ]
President Truman seriously considered dissolving the Marine Corps
He considered it dangerous to the Republic.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

[ Parent ]
Truman Knew How to Kick Some A**
Maura, I did not know that Truman seriously considered dissolving the Marine Corps!  I am sure Clinton would have appreciated the non-existence of the Marine Corps in 1993 because they openly opposed him on lifting the gay ban--the Commandant of the Marine Corps worked the building [the Pentagon] against Clinton; circulated videotapes intended to demonize gays. But Clinton didn't have the guts to fire the Commandant, who absolutely deserved it for insubordination.  

Truman didn't pull any punches and fired MacArthur when he wanted to invade China from Korea--he just fired him and brought him home.

They don't make presidents like that anymore.

Tanya

Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


[ Parent ]
How is a President with as much inaction on the issue of equality a better example?
Why not Truman who actually had the guts to make it happen? The point isn't to find the guy who is most likable the point is to look at those who actually did something. You get Likable with FDR and Washington or even JFK or Clinton. But in fact Truman, Lincoln and Johnson actually did more.  

Always thinking about it...

[ Parent ]
Is there a pattern of inaction with Roosevelt?
Did you read this?

In June 1941 Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC). It was the most important federal move in support of the rights of African Americans between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That, more than anything, set the stage for what Truman did.

The point is not to detract from what Truman did but that the actions of FDR, while they may not be as big as you like, actually was the foundation for the dismantling of segregation in the Armed Forces and, eventually, throughout society. Trust me, "the inactions" of FDR (as you call them) were greatly appreciated by an entire generation of black Americans, that I did hear first hand.


[ Parent ]
The less idolized presidents, got sh*t DONE
I was thinking the heroic status of Lincoln, FDR, and JFK
while completely understandable, and they did impressive things in our History. The more mundane presidents Truman and LBJ did more actual life changing actions for AA's.
The A-bomb and Viet Nam overshaddowed what LBJ and Truman are remembered for, but integrating the Armed Forces, and signing the Civil Rights Act need more attention in our History.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner


There's some truth to that but...
damn near the entire foundation for Truman's signing of Executive Order 9981 was laid down by Roosevelt. And even during the Second World War, there were a few integrated units.

Part of it also is we tend to remember the bigger things that FDR (to use my example) accomplished and not the "smaller things." Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a lot for the black community (that's often unrecognized and at the risk of losing considerable political capital and party unity) and my grandparents absolutely adored the man.


[ Parent ]
My grandma adored FDR too, she would have had him for 8 terms


"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner


[ Parent ]
Trans in the military no, Intersexed sometimes...
Hum... ok, how about Intersexed service members?  
I worked with two 'Female'  46XY CIAS types. One knew what she was, the other was clueless about it all.
Both did their jobs as equals to anyone else and did them well. Both were allowed to serve out their initial contracts with a RE4 re-enlistment code and then let go.

I did a full 20 years and had a GCD and retirement. When I was 28 they found out I was a Chimera. Externally male, internally not so much. Now days transgendered as well.

While I was in I worked with NATO nations personel. Some of whom are trans.

Would I say that a trans person would be good as front line Infantry? No. I was in the Navy not the Army. From what I saw a Trans person could fit in the Navy and work out quite well if given the chance.

Heck, I did it for 20 years as a 'guy' with estrogen levels high enough to say not only 'female' but 'pregant female'.

Humans are weird, get used to it.  


I refuse to believe...

...we are humans. ;)

What, did you expect me to say we weren't weird? :P

Seriously, a very cogent comment about military service...thank you. From one veteran to another, let me also thank you for your service. :)

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau


[ Parent ]
To Gina and Autumn
Thank you for both for serving our country and for explaining how someone who is intersexed can and do serve. Indeed, I have learned in recent years about intersexed people from my partner who is a clinical social worker and has worked with people dealing with these issues.  That makes sense to me that an intersexed person could serve.

I think it should come down to the ability to do the job and to conduct oneself according to the laws of the military that should be applied equally to all of us, LGBT or straight or intersexed.  

Thank you both very much.  And Autumn I read your postings regularly and appreciate what you have to say and enjoy how you write it.

Tanya  

Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


[ Parent ]
What does it mean to be a citizen?
I do like the broader frame of Ms. Domi's essay here in the sense that she is asking us all to consider what does in mean to be LGBT and an American citizen.

While the axes of "second-class citizenship" are different from those of the "second class citizenship" of the black community I do agree with her that LGBT's are second class citizens.

Yes, even those of us who are a)white and b) have money.


Google is my friend
Here's some good stuff on Eleanor Roosevelt:

ER began to recognize racial discrimination only after she moved to the White House in 1933.

As she traveled the nation, ER witnessed the seemingly intractable hardships wrought by the Great Depression. Lorena Hickok's field reports detailed the inadequacies of Federal Emergency Relief Administration programs and brought individual stories of personal hardship to ER's attention. And although ER had visited African Americans when she toured poverty stricken areas the summer after she became First Lady, she did not recognize the depth of institutional racism until she pressured the Subsistence Homestead Administration to admit African Americans to Arthurdale. Her intervention failed and she invited NAACP Executive Secretary Walter White and the presidents of African American universities to the White House to discuss the situation. This unprecedented meeting quickly became a tutorial on racial discrimination and lasted until midnight. ER then pressured National Recovery administrator Donald Richberg to investigate the raced-based wage differentials implemented by southern industries and asked Navy secretary Claude Swanson why blacks were confined to mess hall assignments.

FDR aides tolerated ER's intercessions, but became incensed when she supported Walter White's relentless efforts to secure administration support for the Costigan-Wagner anti-lynching bill. The bill had been introduced in early 1934, and while FDR agreed with its sentiments, he did nothing to urge its passage. A frustrated White turned to ER for advice and additional pressure. Her support not only frustrated FDR, but enraged press secretary Steve Early who sent ER a strong memo condemning White's single-mindedness. The tension within the White House increased when Claude Neal was lynched in October. Despite her best efforts, ER could not convince FDR to lend public support to the bill for fear of alienating the senior southern senators, or to argue that lynching was covered under the Lindbergh kidnaping statute. In protest, White resigned his position with the Virgin Islands Advisory Council and ER once again found herself defending him against FDR and Early's anger. And when White asked her to attend the NAACP-hosted art exhibit entitled "A Commentary on Lynching," ER, although concerned about alienating Congress, lent her public support to this depiction of white mob violence. Southern critics, led by Senator Eugene Talmadge, seized the opportunity to attack FDR through ER's support of the NAACP and throughout 1935 published photos of ER with blacks in The Georgia World. Rumors circulated throughout the South of Eleanor Clubs, an ER inspired organization of black domestics urging them not to work for white women, so frequently that they became treated as fact. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was so offended by her actions that he became convinced that she had black blood. Other Americans did as well and wrote to ask if this was true only to receive a reply from ER which said that her family had lived so long in the nation that she could not answer the question with certainty.

FDR's death freed ER from the constraints the White House wanted to impose on her activities. She joined the NAACP Board of Directors in May 1945 and the Congress on Racial Equality Board in the fall. When a white induced race riot nearly destroyed Columbia, Tennessee in October, she responded to White and Bethune's request to chair the investigative committee and worked with Thurgood Marshall to force the Justice Department to look beyond the scenario painted by town officials. The NAACP then appointed her to its legal affairs committee. She pressured the Truman administration to recommend a permanent FEPC, to lobby against the poll tax, and to propose low income federally financed housing. She urged the president to address the 1948 NAACP annual convention and joined him on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial as he became the first president to address the organization's national convention. Although Truman had appointed her to the American delegation to the United Nations (as a way to shore up black support for his administration), their early relationship was rocky. Truman's speech and his decision to integrate the military encouraged her to reassess his leadership and played a strong role in her endorsement.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/elr...

Yes, and that link has even more stuff. Eleanor Roosevelt was far more awesome than her husband for the black community.

Should she choose to (and I think it's her inclination, actually) Michelle Obama can kinda sorta begin to follow in her footsteps far better than Hillary Clinton ever did.


Eleanor Roosevelt is one of my great heroes
Yes, I do remember reading about Lorena Hickok's reports; and about ER attempting to get blacks into Arthurdale etc.  She was really hated by many and cruelly treated by media and others.  I knows she did so much for the country, but perhaps her greatest legacy was chairing the drafting of the the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the foundational document for what is referred to as the International Bill of Rights.  In fact, Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard has written a wonderful book about ER's exploits in this capacity, but Mary Ann Glendon would have loathed ER in life and would have probably worked against her.  She is a real homophobe and advises the Catholic Church on issues of sexuality etc. She has unsuccessfully fought gay marriage in Massachusetts aw well.

Tanya

"Well behaved women never make history."


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox