outies

Okay. Here's my take on this - I am a gay officer in the Royal Air Force, and openly so. The opinions I give here are entirely my own, and in no way reflect the policy or doctrine of the Ministry of Defence or the Royal Air Force.

When I signed my RAF Oath of Allegiance I signed to say that I would, as in duty bound, defend the Queen and my country. That I would obey all orders of Her Majesty and my superiors. Basically, that, as a person, I would be willing to lay my life on the line to defend what I believe in, and that I have the discipline to do so.

Fast-forward two years, when I graduated from the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, 17th out of a course of over 90, proudly wearing the cap badge I had worked hard to earn the right to wear. I'd been through personal, physical hell during training. I'd braved freezing snow, ice-cold river crossings, sweltering heat, and eye-crossingly dull air power lectures. I'd faced extensive tests of my physical, mental, and organisational abilities to cope with the unique demands of the Armed Forces, in classrooms, in the field - even up mountains in the most treacherous of conditions. I'd been broken down as a man, and rebuilt in the RAF's own image. I lived and breathed my Service.

I received my Queen's commission (no sniggering) - the Queen signed it, saying she had especial trust in my loyalty, courage, and good conduct. She expects me to lead and to command men - who am I to refuse, she is, after all, my boss.

Now, look back at that and tell me where my sexuality comes in to play. It doesn't. I am here because I want to serve my country, I am willing to die fighting for what I believe in, and I have the strength of body and spirit to do so. Who can claim that my sexuality diminishes my ability to conduct my duties?

Common misconceptions are that, as a gay man, I would be gallavanting around with other gay officers, cavorting with them in the Officers' Mess. That I would be unable to keep my hands off the young men who joined up for the same reasons as me, but who happen to be at a lower rank. Absolute bunkum - across the world Armed Forces have problems with sexual harrassment - heterosexual harrassment, to be more precise. Incidents of gay men or women sexually harrassing their comrades in more liberal Armed Forces (like the British and Dutch forces) are extremely low, so how can anyone claim that this is a problem?

I am who I am, and I am respected by my colleagues, of equal, lower, and superior rank, because I am honest about my sexuality and don't allow it to become an issue. I have the right to be frank about my sexuality, and I have the responsibility to keep the deeper details of my personal life outside the workplace. Don't ask, don't tell is, itself, an insidious method for silencing the gay community within the Armed Forces of some countries, effectively asking homosexuals to deny their sexuality by hiding it. The British Armed Forces, the group of world-renowned, highly-trained men and women I am honoured to be among, is a richer and more diverse organisation for allowing homosexuals to serve, and we will continue to do so with distinction.

In consideration of
"Toward a Sociology of Transgendered Bodies,"
by Richard Ekins and Dave King
and (c) 1999, The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review, where it was (presumably) first published. p.580: 23 pages.

Node your homework, and present it to your professor on E2.

---

This article provides, as authors Ekins and King write in their conclusion, "a conceptual framework for a comprehensive sociology of transgendered bodies" (598). They categorize transgendered persons by four "styles" (Ibid.):

• migrating: in which a person makes physical changes to the body in order to align it with the opposite sex
• oscillating: in which migration occurs both ways, back and forth from male to female to male, as social pressures necessitate
• erasing: in which sexuality is repressed altogether, often not by the eraser him/her-self, but by abusive caretakers
• and transcending: in which, the authors write, "the whole process of transgendering is radically redefined by rendering problematic the binary gender divide" (595).

The most interesting example to me is that of a person named Phaedra, who considers saself a "'gender transient' - a person who puts their gender in transcience in order both to study it and to live a life which maximally integrates the masculine and feminine in one's personality" (598). I find this interesting because I have long viewed the very idea of gender -- and allowing one's sex to be such a large part of one's personal identity by means of gender adoption or assignment -- to be spiritually slippery. That is, I view my strong personal identity as a "man" (or even, more clinically, a "male"), to serve as a distraction to understanding who or what I truly am.

It is difficult to conceptually divorce gender and identity, isn't it? For brief moments, I've been able to accomplish an understanding of myself as a genderless, sexless, spiritual being, but not for long. The importance of one's penis or vagina to his or her identity is immense. We have crafted a society in which it is nearly impossible to reconcile genderlessness and humanity. And though I wish it weren't so, I think I understand nonetheless why it is so.¹

Here is the explanation in a vastly oversimplified nutshell:

First, we must understand that the conflict, suffering, and clinical phenomena that Ekins and King write about in "Toward a Sociology of Transgendered Bodies" are mere tips of the iceberg of social fallout caused by importing gender into identity. Our attitudes toward social behavior, including sexuality, have been shaped by evolutionary forces. Some of these forces may have worked on the "hardwiring" of the human brain, causing us to prefer thinking in binary terms when it comes to gender. But some cultures, including, arguably, some Western cultures, don't really limit themselves to two genders. So at least part (if not all) of the importance we give a person's gender certainly is socially determined.

My explanation for this importance is that natural selection occurs not only for genes, but also for cultures. A culture which values reproduction gets to survive; a culture which doesn't won't be around very long. In fact, if we look at human social interaction through a Darwinian lens, we can see that survival and reproduction are THE most important -- and the most emphasized -- subjects in social interaction.

And of course, one can't emphasize the importance of reproduction without also emphasizing the importance of sexuality, (euphemisms notwithstanding). And you can't talk about sexuality without talking about assigned genders. So, like it or not, even in the most socially conservative Western circles, (and perhaps MOST OBVIOUSLY in the case of religious and social conservatives), there is a prevailing attitude that a person's sexuality is not private at all. After all, survival of the species is everybody's business.

In order to cause large-scale reproductive success for high-quality genes (i.e., those which create durable, reproductively-viable offspring), fertile males and fertile females need to copulate with each other often, but selectively. Males and females need to be readily distinguished despite the use of clothing, if large-scale reproductive success is to occur. Enforcement of the sexual code requires adherence to 'correct' use of clothing and behaviors which are consistent with one's assigned gender, which, as I have illustrated, corresponds with genitals because of the highly public nature of sexuality, and the importance of reproduction to the species.

But in natural selection, traits are not selected for their ability to achieve survival and reproduction minimally. Frequently, traits arise in a species which could be deemed "overkill"; a less elaborate adaptation could have accomplished the same thing. This is also true in cultural natural selection. Mere recognition of the importance of reproduction is sufficient to achieve reproductive success. Assigning gender to people as a means of identifying them as people is unnecessary. It's too elaborate, and it has the obvious consequence of denying personal exploration, since gender is thrust upon a person at birth. It deems the person who rejects or modifies his/her assigned gender as 'diseased', rather than recognizing the society itself as such.

All of the categories of transgendered persons examined by Ekins and King, and the fact that they are academically notable, result from the ubiquitous social insistence that a person's reproductive status is the rightful business of everyone. Nonconformity with one's assigned gender norms is viewed as potentially dangerous, and certainly threatening. It is my conclusion that this view has survived in human culture because it has been selected-for, and that at the same time, there exists a less virulent alternative -- one which embraces and celebrates the spiritual mission of self-understanding with which we are all charged.

Notes

1. I plan to one day write a comprehensive paper documenting the details of this explanation. It warrants entire books. It warrants the devotion of an entire department of a University, in fact. And I don't just mean the study of gender, but the study of the origins of gender and the reasons for its social importance. Currently, this subject is only studied as a footnote in LGBT studies, or Women's Studies, departments which, sadly, are rarely taken seriously by the academic community at large.

A review of:
"Dissent in Ashcroft's America"
An essay by Patricia Nell Warren appearing in the January/February, 2004 issue of The Gay and Lesbian Review

A Node Your Homework Release

---

This opinion piece in The Gay and Lesbian Review discusses the ways in which political dissenters are treated in the United States. Generally, Warren argues, dissent is punished. She offers evidence of a number of troubling trends in the United States of America, involving sometimes-organized attempts to skirt the spirit (and, in the opinion of many lawyers, the letter), of Constitutional law.

Since the article is focusing on gay issues, Warren starts by reviewing the very recent history of society's (and usually, more specifically, the U.S. or U.S. State governments') attempts to silence gay dissidents, beginning with the criminalization and severe stiffening of penalties for illegal protest, (i.e., protesting in a place, time, or fashion that is not permitted by law). The right to protest peacefully is protected by the letter of Constitutional law, but this is worthless without the backing of the Supreme Court, the Congress, local governments, and ultimately, the American public.

The American people, says Warren, aren't really sold on the idea of free expression at all. They just think they are. Even in the most liberal communities -- even in the gay community -- there is a growing attitude that dissent should be punished if the ideas being expressed are potentially "dangerous". The cases Warren offers as evidence involve issues surrounding AIDS, HIV transmission, barebacking, and questioning of AIDS science, all topics providing plenty of fodder for controversy, even within the American gay community. The same liberal (and gay) activists who endured years of ostracism and government attempts to silence them for their politically incorrect views are now eager to see the same done to dissident voices within the gay community. Gay men who openly question AIDS science are threatened, and if they demonstrate illegally, are likely to suffer much more severe penalties.

Moreover, there is a growing eagerness in the gay community -- and hey, let's be honest; in the GLOBAL community -- to use the word "Terrorist" to label dissenters of any stripe. Suddenly, gay men who admit to having sex without condoms are "terrorists" because they could be spreading lethal HIV. Suddenly, SLAPP suits (Strategic/Selective Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are being used within the gay community over charity fundraisers, effectively resulting in censorship. And suddenly, the gay community is, as Warren says, sharing in "a grim conviction that 'dissenters give aid and comfort to the enemy.'" In light of the new way America is dealing with its dissidents, the annoyingly trite phrase, "The terrorists have already won," comes to mind.

Noam Chomsky points out that, "it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended." Even liberal Americans, and even self-identified oppressed Americans, (i.e., self-identified gay Americans), are troublingly eager to silence those who disagree with them.

Well, I mean, after all, it's just easier that way, isn't it?

A review and discussion of the article, "What Gay Studies Taught the Court: The Historians' Amicus Brief in Lawrence v. Texas", by George Chauncey.

---

After reading "What Gay Studies Taught the Court," it immediately struck me as peculiar that the Supreme Court would have put so much emphasis on traditional understandings of morality. It's peculiar to me because the role of the Supreme Court, as I understand it, is to decide matters of Constitutional law; to ensure that Congress follows the rules about rulemaking enshrined in the Constitution.

Of course, the Supreme Court frequently finds itself in a position of having to be creative in interpreting Constitutional edicts which were, in the first place, left sufficiently "open" so as to ensure the durability and longevity of their usefulness. Famous phrases from the U.S. Constitution, like, "cruel and unusual punishment," were phrased as such because a contemporary interpretation would always be needed. What is cruel and unusual by today's standards may no longer be cruel nor unusual in a hundred years.

This article emphasizes the inconsistent moral teachings about sodomy throughout history. But ironically, one of the most conservative members of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia -- certainly not regarded as a friend of the American homosexual -- has expressed disapproval of the trend toward what some call, "judicial legislation." That is, Scalia would regard his personal views on morality as irrelevant to his role as a Supreme Court Justice. Scalia would much prefer that Congress decide and articulate precisely and thoroughly what the law of the land is to be, and that the Supreme Court only interfere when Congress (or perhaps a lower court's decision), has violated some Constitutional provision. So even though this article¹ points out that moral teaching on sodomy has been inconsistent in many ways over the millennia, a conservative Justice such as Scalia probably finds the history of moral teaching on this matter to be irrelevant. It is not his job to decide the law based on morality, and he knows that. Justice Scalia seems to be very aware that it is his job to insist on conformity to the United States Constitution, and nothing more.

In fact, Scalia has a worse reputation than he really deserves within the gay community. Understanding Scalia's true position in Lawrence v. Texas -- and his devotion to jurisprudence -- promotes a less infuriating view of Scalia's approach to homosexuality and the law. Personally, I would dislike many of the consequences of Scalia's minority opinions, and I do dislike the consequences of a good number of his majority opinions. And yet, he has a very defensible position which my principles force me to consider acceptable. Specifically, Scalia's position is that it is the role of the Congress and state legislatures to make laws, and it is the role of the Supreme Court to support those laws unless -- and ONLY unless -- they conflict with some specific clause or clauses in the U.S. Constitution.

Now, some people believe that sodomy laws do conflict with some clause or clauses in the U.S. Constitution, and if you can construct your case against sodomy laws that way, it's a different matter than the one I'm discussing here. But most liberal Americans don't seem to understand that the matter before the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas was not "Are sodomy laws fair?", but rather, "Is there anything about the Texas sodomy law which conflicts with some specific guarantee in the U.S. Constitution?"

William Safire, in his "On Language" column in the New York Times (Magazine), writes:

An Associated Press account of [Scalia's] stinging dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down that state's anti-sodomy law, quoted Scalia out of context as writing [in his dissenting opinion], "I have nothing against homosexuals," which seemed condescending. His entire sentence though, was . . .,"I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."²

Safire goes on to point out that the preposition "against," in, "I have nothing against," takes the gerund object, "promoting," rather than "homosexuals."

The point is this: Scalia's job is to gauge whether a law passed by Congress, or, as in this case, a State legislature, has violated some provision of the U.S. Constitution. Scalia's judgment was that the Texas anti-sodomy law did not do this. That's it.

The correct way to get rid of anti-sodomy laws, in Scalia's view, is to convince a majority of the voting public that they are unnecessary, unfair, or otherwise shitty, and/or recruit one's legislative representatives to the same view. The Constitution does provide very important exceptions to this, which is why the United States is no longer segregated by race. But Scalia's position is that since it was not homosexual orientation, but rather homosexual behavior (and even, in some other instances, heterosexual sodomy) which was being punished, the Constitution provides no specific protections.

Let me be clear: Scalia's position is one with which I do NOT agree -- I subscribe to an opposing viewpoint that considers the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation to be semantic and distracting in this case. And at the same time, Scalia's position is not untenable -- it is not nearly as disgusting as it's often made out to be.

---

Notes

1. The brief itself was provided to the Supreme Court at the time of the Lawrence v. Texas decision, but the article includes more than just that amicus brief. This article gives background information about sodomy laws, and, in a wondrous display of self-reference, (a phenomenon which, strangely, always fascinates me), it discusses the way in which the brief (contained in that very article) "bolstered" the Majority's reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas. So, in its "article" (as opposed to "brief") form, it was published in GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, in August, 2004.

2. Safire, William. "Flagellum dei: Justice Scalia on the fused participle." New York Times Magazine. New York: Oct 19, 2003. pg. 22, 1 pg.