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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Great to see the IWM cover this, and it's very well done, as usual
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...
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.
I fail to see how someone's sexual orientation affects their ability to do a job. Why should it matter?
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.
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.
No one should be treated with contempt for the love they feel, regardless of their orientation in any form whatsoever...
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.
Simple decency has finally prevailed. You can be who you are without being your morality judged. Basically, it’s NOYB.
So the answer is 'homophobia' and 'the daily mail' then
Discussing this is really important.
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.
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.
Great documentary
Very interesting, thanks.
Donald Trump plays a role in this...
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.
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
Many countries have handled this issue badly not just the U.K.!
@@doberski6855 k
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.
🤔
Fascinating stuff. I'm sure i've seen this on here before though, this is a reupload right?
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.
It wasn't. We just let Washington say it was
@samsonsoturian6013 BRITISH armed forces, not the USA.
What?
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.