I have not served in the military, but back in the mid 1990s and close friend was a reservist in the TA, and he justified the ban on the basis that if a squad is advancing under fire, and one soldier is hit and wounded, then a gay boyfriend next to him would probably be distracted and cease his advance. At the time I accepted that argument, but I now realise that it was just a circular as the "Blackmailed by Russians" argument. If gays in the military are open and accepted, then any commanding officer would make sure that anyone in a relationship with another solider is not placed in the same combat team, just as they have done with heterosexual couples since forever.
Exactly. As long as no one expects special treatment or special privilege or protected status based on their identity traits, and they don’t require extra facilities (extra cost to military), it doesn’t matter at all.
I had an australian army vet I used to work with explain to me in great detail that the biggest reason women simply could not serve in active combat roles is that "they" simply smell too bad after not showering for two weeks. That's sure an interesting way to spin it buddy. Separately, my dad was an aus army officer from 73 to 2005, and one of the things he remarked on was how utterly common it was for his peers to leave the army as captains, majors, or lt cols, divorce their wives and leave their families, and come out as gay. My mum hated being "an army wife", she found the entire culture including the "wife culture" toxic as hell. (The australian defence force made this change for gay soldiers/sailors/etc in 1992)
This is all very interesting. I was a civil servant working closely with a tri-service unit at the time of the change in regulations. The discrimination continued, but in a more muted way. I believe it is now much better, but at the time there was resentment and there was discrimination despite the change. So very different from my father's time in the military (1940-45). He spoke fondly and movingly of comrades who were known to be gay and treated as everyone else was.
OK, here goes. In thre Victoria era prostitution was rife. Some of that prostitution was male on male anal and violent. It had an aspect in the public school system (private schools ). Another in street sex. In the "rent boy" phenomenon, prison violence, the abuses suufered by boyx sent to Australia post war. And in parts of the armed services threats baseds on rumours of sexual viollence became part of the tactics of intimidation used by some NCOs that were used to break a recruit's spirit so he could be rebuilt not as soldier but as a potential tool of further abuse. I belive is this violent abusive practice which the regulations and laws were passionately devoted to stamping out. To the heterosexual establiishment that was what homosexuality was, who "queers" were. Abusers and abuse victims. Hopefully we are at a point where we can welvome and protect victims of the abuse and of the secondary victimisation that the system meted out even when there was no primsrfry victim In the case of the WREN asked how often she and her partner slept together. That line of questioning was aimed at getting disclosure of whatever perverse practices were responsinle, who were the ring leaders, was it a cult? I think. Witch finders - in my time. In my armed services. To extraordinary professionals who would go upon their deaths to protect my librtry and yours I'm sorry.
@@olivere5497 There are a million reasons to read anything by Brian Sewell. His memory was not always quite 100% and he did tend to play up his own role in his adventures and escapades, but his language and his ability to draw one into a tale were sublime.
The U.S. was one of the last developed nations to overturn its ban on allowing gays, lesbians and bisexuals to openly serve in the military when it repealed the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in 2010.
It's pretty mind boggling to see that this sort of stuff was going on and not only that but it was so recent in our human history. Similar to race segregation being so recent also. Sad to know how rough it could've been though, like how Alan Turing was chemically castrated and essentially forced to commit suicide despite the fact that we owe so much of a part of our freedom to that man not to mention the leaps forward in technology. A valuable message though, learn from this history and move forward to a brighter light.
Well, such official discrimination continues in many countries / areas of the World. I remember being brought-up to think non-whites were almost a different species and that gays were not even of this planet. Actually, that was not due to my parents, who were much more liberal but my grandmother and the general media at that time. I am so grateful that I kept my parents' values but further liberalised them - as has society. If we are to discriminate against people because they are different from us, then logically we must discriminate against every other person on the planet: no one is quite the same. Or, perhaps, we should just except each-other and just discriminate against those who do us harm - who, amazingly - are often of the same colour, sexuality, gender, upbringing and general background as... us. I couldn't care a flying ferret what colour you are; what gender you are; what sexual-orientation you are - my question is how well can you do the job? That way, we have a larger pool of able people from which to choose. I am so glad that my country has now gone done that path. Yes, I know some private discrimination must still exist but, hopefully, it is being eradicated because, let's face it, quite apart from any suffering it causes, it's bloody idiotic.
As much as I love your regular programming, this was a refreshing choice of topic, and as usualy, you have done a brilliant job of covering it. I would love to hear more stories from the marginalised elements of the military.
The content is moving in parts but the misleading title might frustrate some viewers who are expecting more of an explanation of why social and political attitudes changed. A better title might have been: "The real life impact of the 'gay ban' in the services".
The entire point is not caring about what you are but what you do, I just hope the military continues to prioritize on the latter, just as this video shows
A traumatic part of co-called humanity. Having to live in fear and under a mask because of the way I was born, not from choice. I was an Officer in the Royal Navy for 8 years.
My personal thanks goes to these brave men and women. They were and are brave for the courace in the face of nonsensical laws and regulation. Your courage has made the armed forces a better place. Sadly there is still a long way to go before true equality is reached. I only hope there is a real future for LGBTQ+ and better education for the uneducated and ignorant. Thank you IWM for this documentary.
I keep hoping a hitherto unknown, 1943 diary from gay writer Micky Burn (written during his time there) will be found/revealed, showing the gay side to the Colditz story.
Very interesting, enlightening, I do kind of understand a ban at least with people serving with each other Homosexual or heterosexual relationships, as this did cause issues operationally in the same way as the ban on woman in teeth arm units. But this does seem that there was also a wider underlying homophobia issue. Would hope that things are better now.
All it would do was force people to keep secrets which itself enables blackmail. If it was more acceptable then there would be nothing to blackmail you with.
In the 50s Homosexuality was illegal in the UK, not just in the armed forces. However the self perpetuating 'blackmail' thing was just that. If it wasn't illegal in HM Forces then there would be nothing to be blackmailed about.
@@martindoe6099 You're right that blackmail does not work when behaviors are viewed as acceptable. Thanks to Queen Victoria ("Ladies wouldn't do that!") lesbian sex was not illegal in Britain, though. Yet they harassed military women too. I think the problem is more a matter of intolerant groupthink. It's much the same with cancel culture today. Anyone who goes against the prejudices-du-jour (including those advertized as tolerant) is automatically suspect (are you one too?) and liable to be ostracized. We're social animals, so shaming hurts deeply.
As usual another very interesting and thought provoking presentation... Thank you IWM... I hate discrimination whichever form it takes...It must be said though that there were and are still many careers and professions which significantly discriminate against Gay people, without openly banning them.... I suppose at least the British forces were not underhand regarding their policy...... Roger
Although the 'ban' was all based on BS reasons, and was pretty much blatant bigotry/prejudice in action, yet, there *was* one, single proper reason why some/many in the fighting arms did not want to serve alongside homosexuals in the 1980s-2000s; or, at least not if their sexuality was hidden. There was a group of open-minded soldiers, who still had one legitimate concern about sexuality being hidden. And that concern was blood-borne HIV transmission. Y'see, it was common knowledge by the 1990s that HIV was much more common/rampant among the homosexual population. Treatments back then were also not great -- neither being as effective, nor having as mild a side effect profile, as modern day treatments. Also, it'd be a huge burden on the exchequer to test everyone regularly (cuz once is not enough). Moreover, there was a real danger in catching HIV from 'battlefield' or 'combat' transfusions, which are pretty much what the sound -- blood transfusions from ABO compatible soldiers in combat situations, on the battlefield. Hiding sexuality from one's cadres, and in the absence of frequent testing for HIV, could pose a real risk for the fighting arms (as opposed to the support arms), in real world combat situations where such transfusions were still (and are still!) used, somewhat frequently as a life-saving procedure. Imagine having your life saved by a buddy, only to later find out you had HIV/AIDS just cuz no one knew the donor was an HIV +ve homosexual...talk about out of the frying pan, into the fire scenario (in those days)... So, yes, while much of the ban was accounted to by sheer ignorance, bigotry & challenges to stupid machismo-/puffery-based stereotypes, yet, there was one specific, peculiar aspect of it which made some sense to certain sub-groups of armed forces personnel...
@shantanusapru There was the same percentage of gay people in the military then as there are now. The only difference is that they had to keep it a secret from the officers back than.
@@Poliss95 Source?? On the face of it, this sounds ludicrous. Primarily because if this was supposedly 'kept secret' then how can one know the true (or even approximate) numbers? And, thus, how can one claim what you're claiming? Raw, hard data > Personal, emotional 'truths'...
These veterans shouldnt be labled LGBTQ etc etc. they are service people and deserve every drop of respect we can give them. Thank you all for your service.
I have not served in the military, but back in the mid 1990s and close friend was a reservist in the TA, and he justified the ban on the basis that if a squad is advancing under fire, and one soldier is hit and wounded, then a gay boyfriend next to him would probably be distracted and cease his advance. At the time I accepted that argument, but I now realise that it was just a circular as the "Blackmailed by Russians" argument. If gays in the military are open and accepted, then any commanding officer would make sure that anyone in a relationship with another solider is not placed in the same combat team, just as they have done with heterosexual couples since forever.
I served with a gay lad in the infantry (1978-1990). He was an excellent soldier and was protected by some hard lads.
I fail to see how someone's sexual orientation affects their ability to do a job. Why should it matter?
Because most people are incapable of critical thinking
Exactly. As long as no one expects special treatment or special privilege or protected status based on their identity traits, and they don’t require extra facilities (extra cost to military), it doesn’t matter at all.
Just because a man is gay makes him no less a man l served with a few in the military and they were hard tough men
@@krisshnapeswanipeswani3190nice woke answer
Then why have separated showers for men and women?
So the answer is 'homophobia' and 'the daily mail' then
I had an australian army vet I used to work with explain to me in great detail that the biggest reason women simply could not serve in active combat roles is that "they" simply smell too bad after not showering for two weeks. That's sure an interesting way to spin it buddy. Separately, my dad was an aus army officer from 73 to 2005, and one of the things he remarked on was how utterly common it was for his peers to leave the army as captains, majors, or lt cols, divorce their wives and leave their families, and come out as gay. My mum hated being "an army wife", she found the entire culture including the "wife culture" toxic as hell. (The australian defence force made this change for gay soldiers/sailors/etc in 1992)
Bloody hell, the bloke at 11:29 speaks so mildly for what this bloke at the nightclub did to him, undermining his career and slandering him.
This is all very interesting. I was a civil servant working closely with a tri-service unit at the time of the change in regulations.
The discrimination continued, but in a more muted way. I believe it is now much better, but at the time there was resentment and there was discrimination despite the change.
So very different from my father's time in the military (1940-45). He spoke fondly and movingly of comrades who were known to be gay and treated as everyone else was.
brian sewell's autobiography had some odd tales from his national service.
OK, here goes.
In thre Victoria era prostitution was rife. Some of that prostitution was male on male anal and violent. It had an aspect in the public school system (private schools ). Another in street sex. In the "rent boy" phenomenon, prison violence, the abuses suufered by boyx sent to Australia post war. And in parts of the armed services threats baseds on rumours of sexual viollence became part of the tactics of intimidation used by some NCOs that were used to break a recruit's spirit so he could be rebuilt not as soldier but as a potential tool of further abuse.
I belive is this violent abusive practice which the regulations and laws were passionately devoted to stamping out. To the heterosexual establiishment that was what homosexuality was, who "queers" were. Abusers and abuse victims.
Hopefully we are at a point where we can welvome and protect victims of the abuse and of the secondary victimisation that the system meted out even when there was no primsrfry victim
In the case of the WREN asked how often she and her partner slept together. That line of questioning was aimed at getting disclosure of whatever perverse practices were responsinle, who were the ring leaders, was it a cult? I think.
Witch finders - in my time. In my armed services. To extraordinary professionals
who would go upon their deaths to protect my librtry and yours
I'm sorry.
@@olivere5497 There are a million reasons to read anything by Brian Sewell. His memory was not always quite 100% and he did tend to play up his own role in his adventures and escapades, but his language and his ability to draw one into a tale were sublime.
The U.S. was one of the last developed nations to overturn its ban on allowing gays, lesbians and bisexuals to openly serve in the military when it repealed the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in 2010.
Great to see the IWM cover this, and it's very well done, as usual
It's pretty mind boggling to see that this sort of stuff was going on and not only that but it was so recent in our human history. Similar to race segregation being so recent also. Sad to know how rough it could've been though, like how Alan Turing was chemically castrated and essentially forced to commit suicide despite the fact that we owe so much of a part of our freedom to that man not to mention the leaps forward in technology. A valuable message though, learn from this history and move forward to a brighter light.
Well, such official discrimination continues in many countries / areas of the World. I remember being brought-up to think non-whites were almost a different species and that gays were not even of this planet. Actually, that was not due to my parents, who were much more liberal but my grandmother and the general media at that time. I am so grateful that I kept my parents' values but further liberalised them - as has society. If we are to discriminate against people because they are different from us, then logically we must discriminate against every other person on the planet: no one is quite the same. Or, perhaps, we should just except each-other and just discriminate against those who do us harm - who, amazingly - are often of the same colour, sexuality, gender, upbringing and general background as... us.
I couldn't care a flying ferret what colour you are; what gender you are; what sexual-orientation you are - my question is how well can you do the job? That way, we have a larger pool of able people from which to choose. I am so glad that my country has now gone done that path. Yes, I know some private discrimination must still exist but, hopefully, it is being eradicated because, let's face it, quite apart from any suffering it causes, it's bloody idiotic.
As much as I love your regular programming, this was a refreshing choice of topic, and as usualy, you have done a brilliant job of covering it. I would love to hear more stories from the marginalised elements of the military.
The content is moving in parts but the misleading title might frustrate some viewers who are expecting more of an explanation of why social and political attitudes changed. A better title might have been: "The real life impact of the 'gay ban' in the services".
The entire point is not caring about what you are but what you do, I just hope the military continues to prioritize on the latter, just as this video shows
Discussing this is really important.
No one should be treated with contempt for the love they feel, regardless of their orientation in any form whatsoever...
A traumatic part of co-called humanity. Having to live in fear and under a mask because of the way I was born, not from choice. I was an Officer in the Royal Navy for 8 years.
Even if you didn't want them in the forces, you didn't need to treat them like this. This is what we fort against.
My personal thanks goes to these brave men and women. They were and are brave for the courace in the face of nonsensical laws and regulation. Your courage has made the armed forces a better place. Sadly there is still a long way to go before true equality is reached. I only hope there is a real future for LGBTQ+ and better education for the uneducated and ignorant. Thank you IWM for this documentary.
I keep hoping a hitherto unknown, 1943 diary from gay writer Micky Burn (written during his time there) will be found/revealed, showing the gay side to the Colditz story.
In my head if you're willing to serve and die for your country, you deserve to be treated better than fair
Well, better later than never
Simple decency has finally prevailed. You can be who you are without being your morality judged. Basically, it’s NOYB.
The 90s from the start to the end had large changes in attitude.
This was very enlighting, well done. I found the history of gay people and their struggle in the military very engaging.
Very interesting, thanks.
Great documentary
Very interesting, enlightening, I do kind of understand a ban at least with people serving with each other Homosexual or heterosexual relationships, as this did cause issues operationally in the same way as the ban on woman in teeth arm units. But this does seem that there was also a wider underlying homophobia issue. Would hope that things are better now.
@SuperAndyc1980 There have always been gay people in the armed forces. Just read Onward Virgin Soldiers for examples.
Fascinating stuff. I'm sure i've seen this on here before though, this is a reupload right?
Was the change in the 50s also to do with the Cold War? Presumably a gay soldier at the time would be blackmailable by the Russians.
nah, in the 50s 'sodomy' was a crime.
All it would do was force people to keep secrets which itself enables blackmail. If it was more acceptable then there would be nothing to blackmail you with.
In the 50s Homosexuality was illegal in the UK, not just in the armed forces. However the self perpetuating 'blackmail' thing was just that. If it wasn't illegal in HM Forces then there would be nothing to be blackmailed about.
@@martindoe6099 You're right that blackmail does not work when behaviors are viewed as acceptable. Thanks to Queen Victoria ("Ladies wouldn't do that!") lesbian sex was not illegal in Britain, though. Yet they harassed military women too. I think the problem is more a matter of intolerant groupthink. It's much the same with cancel culture today. Anyone who goes against the prejudices-du-jour (including those advertized as tolerant) is automatically suspect (are you one too?) and liable to be ostracized. We're social animals, so shaming hurts deeply.
As usual another very interesting and thought provoking presentation... Thank you IWM... I hate discrimination whichever form it takes...It must be said though that there were and are still many careers and professions which significantly discriminate against Gay people, without openly banning them.... I suppose at least the British forces were not underhand regarding their policy...... Roger
🤔
People might be interested in the Frank Baines book Chindit Affair: A Memoir of the War in Burma. It talks of him falling in love with a Ghurkha.
Although the 'ban' was all based on BS reasons, and was pretty much blatant bigotry/prejudice in action, yet, there *was* one, single proper reason why some/many in the fighting arms did not want to serve alongside homosexuals in the 1980s-2000s; or, at least not if their sexuality was hidden. There was a group of open-minded soldiers, who still had one legitimate concern about sexuality being hidden.
And that concern was blood-borne HIV transmission.
Y'see, it was common knowledge by the 1990s that HIV was much more common/rampant among the homosexual population. Treatments back then were also not great -- neither being as effective, nor having as mild a side effect profile, as modern day treatments. Also, it'd be a huge burden on the exchequer to test everyone regularly (cuz once is not enough).
Moreover, there was a real danger in catching HIV from 'battlefield' or 'combat' transfusions, which are pretty much what the sound -- blood transfusions from ABO compatible soldiers in combat situations, on the battlefield.
Hiding sexuality from one's cadres, and in the absence of frequent testing for HIV, could pose a real risk for the fighting arms (as opposed to the support arms), in real world combat situations where such transfusions were still (and are still!) used, somewhat frequently as a life-saving procedure. Imagine having your life saved by a buddy, only to later find out you had HIV/AIDS just cuz no one knew the donor was an HIV +ve homosexual...talk about out of the frying pan, into the fire scenario (in those days)...
So, yes, while much of the ban was accounted to by sheer ignorance, bigotry & challenges to stupid machismo-/puffery-based stereotypes, yet, there was one specific, peculiar aspect of it which made some sense to certain sub-groups of armed forces personnel...
The HIV reason is rooted in bigotry also. Plenty of straight people contracted it too.
@shantanusapru There was the same percentage of gay people in the military then as there are now. The only difference is that they had to keep it a secret from the officers back than.
@@Poliss95 Source??
On the face of it, this sounds ludicrous. Primarily because if this was supposedly 'kept secret' then how can one know the true (or even approximate) numbers? And, thus, how can one claim what you're claiming?
Raw, hard data > Personal, emotional 'truths'...
Many countries have handled this issue badly not just the U.K.!
@@doberski6855 k
And? This video is by a UK based museum and is about how the UK handled it.
A 20 minute video to say "homophobia"?
These veterans shouldnt be labled LGBTQ etc etc. they are service people and deserve every drop of respect we can give them.
Thank you all for your service.
I dont think beiny lablef LGBTQ+ takes away from being veterans. They worked hard to be recognised
Donald Trump plays a role in this...
It wasn't. We just let Washington say it was
@samsonsoturian6013 BRITISH armed forces, not the USA.
What?