In the event of the draft though, transgendered folks who went from male to female would create an interesting problem. We don’t draft females.
That’s what Chevy Chase did to avoid the Vietnam draft.
What about Klinger? He (and the real-life soldiers on whom he was based) was neither gay, nor transgendered, nor even a “real” crossdresser.
Klinger has nothing to do with this debate.
He most certainly is relevant to this debate. The point is that he was faking it to get out of the military. Expect a lot of this sort of faking if the draft is reinstated in the US.
First of all, the draft isn’t going to be reinstated, it would be political suicide. We’ve had dozens of threads about this. There will be no draft. Not gonna happen. Nope. About as likely as Cheney running for President in 2008.
Second, if there was a draft, the restriction on gays in the military would be rescinded so fast it will make your head spin. If they’re gonna draft you, you’re not going to be able to get out of the draft by claiming you’re gay.
Third, all the rules for a new draft (if we have a new draft, which we won’t) would be completly different from the Vietnam-era draft. Just because the draft was organized in a particular way in Vietnam doesn’t mean we’ll do the same thing again. A draft would require an entirely new act of Congress, the President can’t just write an executive order. And since almost all the senior military people in the Pentagon are Vietnam-era veterans, I think they’ll attempt to avoid some of the more egregious errors of the Vietnam-era draft. Making all new errors of their own, of course.
The biggest one is with student deferments. They used to be very open ended, and as long as you were making progress toward your degree, you didn’t have to report for induction. That has been radically changed.
Now, if you’re a senior, you get to finish the academic year. Others in college get to finish the semester. High school students, if it comes to that, are deferred until graduation or until age 20, whatever comes first.
That is, if there’s ever a draft, which I agree is unlikely.
Imagine an Arab country being threatened with a US invasion… if they think there are lots of gay soldiers participating they certainly would be more reluctant to face such an invasion ! 
Well tasteless comments aside… I’d be surprised if this passes… though I think its way past time that the US military change their attitude with their gay servicemen. Even if its not much of a change…
He was faking insanity, not gender dysphoria. Not relevant.
Of course, that could also lead to a huge backlash. “How DARE you dismiss us, after we risked our lives for you!” Considering that homosexuality is much more acceptable than it was back in the days of Vietnam.
Also, in the extremely unlikely event there was a draft, I would think they’d seriously consider drafting females this time around.
I really, really wish this talk of the draft would die. Republican Congressmen are uneasy about going along with the President to reform Social Security. What makes anyone in reality-land think that they’ll go along with sending unwilling Americans to war?
I don’t think so. No females are currently registered, and the draft would have to operate from the registration rolls.
Besides, a draft, should it ever come, would be unpopular enough without sending the flower of American womanhood into harm’s way as well. I really don’t think we’ve come fully around to full equality on this one, and I’m not sure I want to be around if we do.
I served with a lot of professional and dedicated women when I was in the Navy, all of whom explicitly wanted to be there, and all of whom faced restrictions on duty classifications that men did not face.
I do support lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military, since the utility of this ban ran out long ago. Restrictions on the jobs women can do, and exempting them from conscription, are in place for far different reasons, and don’t need to be scrapped, IMHO.
Hi,
I’ve been lurking around here for quite awhile, never felt the need to subscribe. Until I saw this thread. As a member of the United States military, I have an interest in threads such as these.
Now that that’s out of the way, I can tell you that allowing homosexual’s to openly serve in the military would not be a good thing. There would never be any acceptance of them by their heterosexual peers, perhaps in time there would be, but not anytime soon.
With that said, I would never treat gays badly based upon their sexual orientation. I would merely be uncomfortable, as would many others, serving with them in any situation.
D
Deist, I recall reading an article which claimed that in countries with openly gay people serving in the military, the problem you address weere barely existant. I have no cite, but I’ll bet other hear have read it.
Yes, many countries allow gays to openly serve in their military. This includes every member of NATO with the exception of Turkey. http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/gays_in_the_military_overview.html
It is also true that many of these countries are much more tolerant of gays in general. The population of the United States is not as liberal or tolerant as our allies. Most US military members are even more conservative than the american population. With this in mind, I believe there would be many different problems in our military.
In the time period depicted by the show, wasn’t gender dysphoria considered to be a form of insanity?
Not to mention homosexuality in itself.
Thanks for your comments. I don’t see, however, how discrimination by other troops against gay people in the military is supposed to end without their being permitted to serve openly in the first place. It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Well, you guys are supposed to be highly disciplined, right? With proper leadership, then problems should be dealt with quickly and decisely and the military can lead society as it did with racial integration. The same dire predictions about allowing gays to serve openly were made about integrating units; but the brass made that happen relatively smoothly. Certainly more smoothly than the schools in Little Rock or Alabama.
Yes.
“In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality. The author presents the DSM-III controversy and a reformulation of the issues involved in the diagnostic status of homosexuality. He argues that what is at issue is a value judgment about heterosexuality, rather than a factual dispute about homosexuality.”
Unltil 1973, homosexuality was a recognized mental illness in and of itself.
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but you’re already serving with homosexuals. You just don’t know/aren’t sure who they are under the current system.