So Obama is backing a “compromise” between Congress and the military that will “pave the way” for a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Whew, that was a lot of quotation marks. Anyway, again, this just brings us a little bit closer to actually tossing that crap out the window, but it’s dependent on the military brass eventually deciding that the sky won’t fall if gay people get to be honest about being gay. It’s just such a joke that we still, in 2010, have this wholly unnecessary policy when our “allies” — i.e., the UK, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, hell, even Israel — have done away with this policy and their militaries haven’t turned into a remake of “The Chorus Line”.

It really is physically hard for me to wrap my brain around DADT, the argument against gay marriage, and homophobia in general. I just can’t believe that people can support those kinds of viewpoints, and be so blatant about it. A former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from the U.S. actually suggested that the Srebrenica Massacre was not prevented because the Dutch had allowed openly gay soldiers to serve in their military. Seriously. Because apparently, being gay makes you weak, and unable to defend anyone properly. Surely there weren’t extenuating circumstances that uh, didn’t involve Dutch soldiers having some kind of gay tea party while a genocide took place.

Obama pledged during the campaign to eliminate DADT. But he also pledged to close Guantanamo and to enact universal health care. The plan to close Guantanamo started out strong but just kind of fizzled, and we know the disaster which passes for universal health care. With the Republicans lining up against repealing DADT (as more and more of their ranks resign from Congress over gay sex scandals, of course), and the complete ineptitude of the Democratic caucus, I’m wary of getting excited over this “compromise”. But HRC seems to think it’s great, and since there’s no trans folks that need to be thrown under the bus for this to happen, you know they really mean it, right? Because trans people aren’t even included under DADT since they can’t even join the military in the first place.

So how much do you want to bet that HRC’s activism on this issue ends when DADT is over? We still have a long way to go for trans people to even have the privilege to be in the military and be quiet about being trans. Not that being quiet is a good thing, but there’s definitely privilege involved in just being able to serve. Of course the “T” is so easily dropped from GLBT when issues like this come up. Trans people are constantly told they have to wait, that they’ll get picked up on the next round. HRC is notorious for this. And what about other differently gendered/non gendered people who wish to serve openly? Am I being unrealistic in thinking we should fight for all this at once?

There’s just so much work to be done.

5 thoughts on “We might be able to tell soon. Well, some of us.

  1. badhedgehog says:

    I dunno if I live in happy fluffy unicorn land or something, but the way I see it, if someone wants to serve their country, the response should be along the lines of, "Wow! Thanks! Let's see how we can best make that work for you and us," and not along the lines of, "no".

    There will be a way for the US military to figure out the best way to make it work and have trans people serve. They may not have figured it out yet, but it is not beyond the wit of humanity. You just have to want to make it happen, and you just have to want to really stamp out bullying and harassment.

    • if someone wants to serve their country, the response should be along the lines of, “Wow! Thanks! Let’s see how we can best make that work for you and us,” and not along the lines of, “no”.

      Seriously! You're volunteering to possibly lay your life on the line and they're turning you away? Are there just too many people willing to die for their country or something?

  2. aliciamaud74 says:

    I don't understand why the supporters of DADT in the military expect me to believe that they are incapable of stamping out bullying and harassment in their own ranks, yet are sure to "elimate terror" in the rest of the world.

  3. Every single argument supporting DADT is seething with bigotry. It's so blatant I can't believe any of them are allowed to pass for debate that we pay for (we = taxpayers).

    I am no fan of the military-industrial complex, and I am emphatically against all aspects of the "war on terror," but this is a simple matter of civil equality. I wish we could just end this shameful debate with: Discrimination in any form is unacceptable. End of discussion.

Comments are closed.