I don’t know if these interested parties are gay or straight, but it seems like the majority of these soldiers are defending and promoting the repeal of DADT and acceptance of gays. 

 I was very comforted by seeing soldiers standing up for other gay and lesbian soldiers like me. 

Not all the opinions were positive; one negative commentary, “Problem with gays”, echoes a concern I read in copmments on my other posts.  If DADT is repealed how do we segregate those uncontrollable gays?  It is obvious to these writers that open gay and lesbian soldiers can’t be permitted to use the same facilities as heterosexuals or work in professions that might permit them to see same-sex genitialia. 

I can’t imagine what it would be like for those heterosexual soldiers.  They would have to look over their shoulder constantly to make sure no perverse homosexual was lurking in the shadows waiting for them to undress.  Truth be told, though, they should start looking over their shoulders now.  I have seen plenty of naked male soldiers throughout my military career- some extremely good looking- and they have all survived unscathed.

I have written previously that other men in my original unit know about me.  I have showered with them numerous times without any issues.  I have wondered what they thought about it, but have honestly never asked them.  Maybe I don’t want them to think about it.  I have even had one male soldier who asked me about his endowment, apparently because he was somewhat proud of it.  I am pretty sure I insulted him with my answer.

When I go to the showers here, they are individual stalls.  I get dressed and undressed in the stall with the curtain closed to protect my own privacy, something many do. 

I have been to plenty of places where this isn’t available and there is just an open room with shower heads lining the wall.  When that’s the case, I go into a dressing area, strip down and head into the shower.  I am not thinking sexual thoughts.  I am not even facing the other men.  I am in there to take a shower.  I admit to seeing attractive men, but I have never gotten sexually excited in a shower.  This is a respect and self-control issue that is needed for gays and lesbians to serve but I don’t think is found in the heterosexual population. 

They haven’t been forced to learn that virtue.

Heterosexual men get caught staring at women all the time.  My soldiers here are constantly – CONSTANTLY, to the point it’s annoying – picking women apart who are walking around.  Most of these women accept and ignore this attention, but what would it be like if these same men walked into their shower?  If the women and men were straight, they might find one another attractive, but could they control themselves and respect each other enough to take a shower and just leave? 

In a military environment where discipline and self control are paramount, unisex facilities should be possible.  Gays, lesbians, men and women should all be able to get naked together without an incident. 

I am reminded of a scene in “Starship Troopers” where there is a unisex shower scene.  I understand that it was just a movie, but the attitude expressed by the ‘troopers’ was exactly what I would expect it should be in this day and age.   The characters talked and joked around, but nothing was of a sexual nature- just as you might find in an all-male or all-female shower.  Soldiers are professionals and should be able to handle a little bit of nudity. 

Finally, if your profession requires that you see sexual genitalia or other features of a body that might be attractive to you, that’s the way it is.  Doctors see naked people all the time.  There are whole specializations based only on reproductive health, and even improving your attractiveness through augmentation and other plastic surgery.  If it’s a heterosexual or homosexuals job that requires them to invade your privacy, you should be more concerned more that they are professionally competent than whether or not they find you attractive. 

In the end, I would rather be attractive to anybody, gay or straight, than be unattractive to everybody.  Be flattered and get over it.  If you’re unattractive then don’t be paranoid, no one is looking at you.

I expected that response because it doesn’t seem like my unit pays attention to any local news outside of mass attacks and political events.  They are too busy taking their mind off of what we do here by playing games, watching movies, or chatting on the internet. There was also relatively little attention to the story generated here  – which rendered it hardly noticeable.

If it was noticeable I’m sure there would at least be some anti-gay snide remarks from my colleagues – but nothing.

We hear about the suicide bombers and assassination attempts, but this story of local homophobia eluded us – or maybe we just didn’t care to see or know what to look for. What our masculine patriarchal society would define as “gay” is normal here.

I don’t mean homosexual sex, but the close contact between men that can be seen everywhere.  Men rubbing other men’s arms, holding hands, hugging, kissing (on the cheek), rubbing hands thrrough each other’s hair – all of which I have personally seen.  It’s a lot of physical contact  – it might even be too much for me if I were on the receiving end.

My soldiers constantly report on seeing “gay” activity.  Most recently we were up at one base run by Iraqis and in one of the dorm buildings, an Iraqi man was sitting on another’s lap.  I thought I had good gaydar, but not in this country.  With all this ambiguity I would assume that a gay man would be able to fit in, but apparently this is wrong.

In a CNN report I caught, a local gay Iraqi boy and his friend speak about what it is like being gay in Iraq.  The boy also mentions the “gay tendencies” of the Iraqi people.

Apparently liberating Iraq from the Sadam dictatorship was also the start of hunting season on homosexuals.  In a report by Newsweek, the sad story of homosexuals in Iraq is examined.  Please take note that the stories are almost a year old, with hardly a word printed or said since last summer until this tragic string of murders.  Maybe these murders will spark a new flurry of interest in the plight of Iraq’s gay population – probably not.

I interact with Iraqis often in my work.  We have an Iraqi that has been given the nickname “hotpants” by soldiers in my unit because he is feminine, listens to Celine Dion while working, and wears women’s perfume.  They all assume he is gay, and I would believe it if he was, but now I wonder what he must go through when he leaves the relative safety of our base.  If honor killings and homosexual witch-hunts are becoming the norm here, what kind of fear does he and other seemingly gay Iraqis live in?

I have noticed that I never hear anything about women.  In a culture where women are treated slightly better than cattle it’s no surprise.  Are there any lesbians in Iraq, I wonder?  We hear about the danger that gay men are in, but what danger are gay women in?

Well, Iraq has a long way to go before any real social progress is made.  It seems that my desire to be openly gay in the military pales in comparison to those who desire just to be left to live.  Our presence failed to impress the deeply religious with our ‘western’ ideas.  Gays are murdered in Sader city and it appears no one really cares – the economy is more important.  Where have we heard that before?

The Armed Forces of the Philippines said that the decision shows the military has a zero tolerance for discrimination among its ranks. But it also warned that despite allowing gays to serve openly, overt homosexual behavior will still not be tolerated.

“Once inside the organization, they have to live by a code of ethics and they have to observe decorum if they want to remain as members of the Armed Forces,” military spokesperson Ernesto Torres told The Manila Times.

To mark the change the military this week began a recruiting drive in the LGBT community.

On Monday, Argentina announced that it had abandoned the gay ban, part of a sweeping military reform act that included the way members of the armed forces are put on trial.

The issue of gays serving opening in the military has roiled the US armed services.

On Monday, legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was filed in the House of Representatives.

While previous attempts to repeal the law were bogged down when Republicans controlled Congress, there is renewed hope the measure will pass the Democratically-controlled Congress.

President Barack Obama has said that he supports repeal of the ban.

Yesterday columnist Dan Savage wondered who sent the ricin letters to eleven gay bars in Seattle and he thinks he knows the culprit. Oh there is no address and faded high-school picture; Savage is good, but he’s no Hercule Poirot. He’s convinced the terrorist threats came from a gay man.

As Savage notes, the letters lacked the type of Bible thumping condemnation usually associated with Christians who wish to engage in violence.

“The letters strike me as having been written by a very bitter man—by someone who came out, expected that gay life would a glorious cycle of song, and was shocked to discover that gay life—just like straight life—comes with no guarantees,” Savage wrote.

One of Savage’s readers pointed to a line the letter writer used that is plagiarized from a poem called “A Display of Mackerel.” Poet Mark Doty included that in his collection Atlantis, written after his lover died of an HIV related illness.

A bitter literate gay man who  wants to get back at other gays because life isn’t what he expected? Jeesh! I miss 2008 already.

If you strayed from 365 for the Thanksgiving week-end, you missed a political flame war. The conversation ranged from the sublime to the silly. I even got called a racist; I informed a friend, who happens to be black, of that charge. We were both rather drunk and he laughed in my face.

“You a racist? Don’t they know you are the whitest black man in America,” he howled.

Follow the thread of the debate if you will. There are two things that need to be stressed. With no shame, I admit being lukewarm to the terms “LGBT” and “gay community.” Both minimize our political differences and negate our memberships to other tribes.

Sure there are larger political issues gays and lesbians can coalesce around (anti-discrimination laws, etc. etc), but outside of that I’m not sure the political needs of the white lesbian couple living in the outback of Montana and the Asian bisexual kid walking down Christopher Street are one in the same. Neither is better than the other, their political agendas meet sometimes, but it does not serve gay rights to somehow act like our ships are headed in the same direction.

That leads to another point of contention. Not every gay person living in this country is a victim. Years ago, in college, I lived in a predominantly black dorm. Was part of the black student organization and whenever we talked about America, we spoke like the wretched of the earth.

Some of us did come from dire backgrounds, others working class, many from backgrounds of wealth and prestige. But we were college students who knew where our three meals were coming from, had basic health care, and our biggest concern was if we were going to do well in that “American poetry since 1945″ course (I didn’t by the way).

The above observation does not mean no one struggled nor had difficult waters to navigate, but when compared to our peers who were not able to attend a mid-western college, our lives were soft. Yes we were black, but not all of us were victims of racist America and it was hyperbole when we painted ourselves as such.

The same applies for gays and lesbians. Over the week-end there has been a conversation about every gay person in America, just because of his/her sexuality, being a victim. That mantra does not acknowledge the privilege many of us gay folk have (and please don’t go crazy because being privileged is not only about race); it also diminishes those gays and lesbians who are really victims of anti-gay prejudice.

We all have our stories of strife and struggle, but If we are all victims what about the real ones, who have to deal with the vagaries of discrimination and bigotry? Where do they fit if a pampered typist like me  can claim the mantle of oppression?

To make victimology the bloodline of every gay and lesbian is to disregard the narrative of our history. Are we where we need to be? No. Nope. Nada, Let me say that one more time because some of you have difficulty with reading: we are not where we need to be!! But the claim of all pervasive gay martyrdom is to have an utter disregard for how far the struggle has come.

Many of you saw the biopic Milk this week-end. The late 1970’s political climate does not equal the early part of the 21st century and to make every gay and lesbian the poor prey of the straight world is a disservice to Milk’s  legacy.

Righteous anger feels good and has it’s  proper place, but distorts the complexity of the world we inhabit. The gay rights movement succeds when it does not shy from that very complexity.

According to the Washington Times, Obama’s team is saying that even ASKING for a repeal of the ban on open gays in the military may not happen until 2010. First, he wants to build consensus.

Fair enough.

But it seems to me that consensus is already built – or at least as much as it’s going to be. Earlier this week, 104 retired generals and admirals called for DADT’s repeal.

A former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke out against DADT in 2007. So did a former Secretary of Defense. 143 members of the House have co-sponsored a bill to overturn the policy; a bill approved by the House Committee on Armed Services.

We know the US military needs more soldiers to fight the two wars we are engaged in – last year alone, 627 servicemembers were dismissed under the DADT. The military needs servicemembers and gays want to serve.

You know what else? DADT is expensive. In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission concluded that so far, it has cost the government (meaning, us, the taxpayers) $363 million.

Don’t Ask is a failed policy. The only people who don’t think so are homophobes.

I understand what Obama is trying to do here. He’s trying to avoid a Clintonesque debacle like the one that gave us DADT in the first place.

But of everything we’re fighting for, DADT seems like it’s the least controversial and would make the most sense. If this isn’t even being looked at until 2010, then when is he going to start making good on his campaign promise of federal civil unions? When (if) he’s re-elected?

I’ve got a better idea. Why doesn’t Obama name a gay person – like Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer, say – as Secretary of Defense? That would signal real change – and give gays and lesbians real hope.