Minority Rights Advocate

Fighting for the smallest minority: The Individual

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 25 other followers

  • Topics

  • Advertisements
  • Old Posts

  • Top Posts

Serious, Honest, Difficult, but Respectful Questions for Military Members to ask that are Based policy implementation for use at the Military Required DADT Repeal training that is Rapidly being implemented in the military.

Posted by mrfixit on March 1, 2011

<NOTE: This is a rapidly moving issue, I’ll try to update and adjust the information below as more becomes known and as I have more time to add specific ties to each and every topic and data point below.  Please check back for he latest version and updated information, or even better, do your own investigation and research>

<UPDATE:  Many leaders have been caught off guard; this training will specifically require the CO, XO and the Command Master Chief to simultaneously train each and every sailor!  I’ve never heard of this, and talked with some older Navy veterans who also felt the same, and they were in while there were massive efforts to end rampant racial tensions.  This effort eclipses even those prior efforts! 

The emphasis and priority on making this work is unprecedented in the US Military.  One is left to wonder why it is so important given the many other issues of the day, but you can draw your own conclusions…>

It does not matter if a person supports or does not support this effort.  There are some serious issues that should be addressed, and it is fair to bring up legitimate questions that should be answered as part of the massive, rapid efforts to train all members of the military.  This training is meant to ensure the military leaders can certify this repeal will not harm readiness, retention, and recruitment, but that can only be true if the real and serious issues are addressed and the military members honestly and fully appreciate an understand the policy change.  Obviously, if they do not, any forced policy will then at best give a superficial but false appearance of meeting the requirements of the Repeal Law.

 In order to assist members of the military and the public, I have developed a series of questions that can be asked in any training session, including what I think the possible answers might be based upon the provided training materials.   This is based on the Navy version, but since this is DoD based, there is likely no significant difference with the other services.

 Feel free to ask these questions when given the opportunity to do so, be respectful and be calm.  This is not to question the wisdom of the policy change or its merit directly, this is to bring up real and legitimate issues that deserve real and honest responses.  It is up to each person to judge the replies and from there make their own assessment.

Here it is:

Printable Document Here: DADT Repeal Questions – Copy

Questions to ask about DADT Repeal Policy Implementation at the required Training

(Version 2 updated 03 March 2011):

–          Why must we continue to segregate by gender?

(It is somehow OK to prohibit segregating by sexual attraction / orientation for homosexuals, but then to have forced segregation of heterosexuals by gender?   What is the basis to segregate men and women in bathrooms and berthing, if we are to ignore the salient factor of sexual preference and attraction?)

–          Expected answer is: Well we already have homosexuals serving without segregation, and they seem to have been able to manage themselves just fine… 

–          Actual reported response:  Society is just not ready to accept fully integrated male and female quarters and bathrooms.  Also, segregation is a bad thing; we don’t want to single out the few homosexuals, which would cause alienation.  Another response branched off to special conditions must be considered if there is a risk of harmful acts, of assuming the victim would likely be the homosexual. 

  • Follow-up (to actual response): If we are saying we have to accept and apply societal norms as basis for segregation of the genders, then what societal norm FORCES cohabitation of heterosexuals and OPEN homosexuals? 
    • Freedom of association in the civilian society does not have an example where people into forced co-habitation with others who have indicated clear sexual attractions or preferences, this is why we have the societal accepted separation by gender. 
    • If the societal normal can be factored into military policy, then data from the state with the highest tolerance of homosexuality (California) indicates that society is not ready, since voter initiatives twice moved to ban homosexual marriage.
  • Follow-up (to expected answer): From what information is this conclusion based? 
    • Expected answer: The military working group study on the repeal of DADT (which interviewed homosexuals serving, or who had served and who testified they were somehow better able to control themselves and had done so, or do so already (this is offensive, because it assumes homosexuals are then somehow superior to heterosexuals in professionalism and restraint…)
  • Follow up:  The DOD report to congress on sexual assault in the military indicates just exactly the opposite.  In the last report male consisted of 11% of the total, and given that perpetrators are virtually always male, that suggests there is significant male homosexual crime, and the male victims went from 5% just 3 years prior to the latest report of 11% which suggests the problem is getting worse, not better.
  • US census data suggests about 2.5% of total population are male homosexuals, which IF that were reflected in the military, would mean there is a 3-4 times greater chance of male to male sexual assault from male homosexuals or if one uses the most exaggerated data from the pro-homosexual support groups who claim a population of 10%, that still indicates a bigger probability to commit assaults than among the heterosexuals.

–          Why does the training mention the military policy on HIV?  How does this pertain to the repeal of DADT?

–          Expected answer possibilities: 1) Honest admission that HIV is a bigger concern in the MSM population.  2) Dodge the question or not address it at all.

–          ACTUAL response reported: This is to address a FALSE perception about a link between homosexual activity and HIV.  

  • Follow-up: If admission of higher risk of HIV among Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), or if there is a dodge to the question, or even the lie that there is no link, then point out that since the majority of HIV cases are among MSM (57% by US CDC data, and US Census data suggests a total population of about 2-3%, which suggests a REAL and strong connection indeed!).
  • It seems obvious that allowing more members who engage in this high risk* activity into the military must clearly place the military at risk for increased demand on limited medical resources and associated costs for those who do happen to contract HIV (or many other conditions) this must certainly expose the force to higher risk of lower medical readiness, how can it then be claimed this change will not negatively impact medical readiness?

(*Such sufficient risk that US FDA specifically bans those who engage in male homosexual activity from donating blood due to HIV risk, a risk which is 42 times higher than for heterosexuals by analysis of CDC and Census data)

  • Expected answer: Dodge the question, or say there are many other medical issues just as limiting, it is not fair to single out any one particular condition.
  • Follow-up:  Agree, it cannot be acceptable to single out any one condition for special restrictions, or for special exceptions from duty and career limitations.  So then why is it OK to have a policy that prohibits separation or early retirement for specifically for HIV, and also a policy that specifically prohibits any line of duty investigations on those who contract the disease when we do have Line of Duty investigations for many other injuries or medical conditions?   – We routinely separate those who survive cancer and are then considered in remission, but we specifically do not do permit this for HIV, which happens require constant and expensive medical care, and can obviously incur additional risks, and even risks of spreading the disease to others.  How can this be justified?
    • How can we strive to maintain “Equal” Opportunity when those with some medical “risks” are ignored, but others with different medical “risks” are processed out? 

 6.2.2. Members with serologic evidence of HIV infection shall not be retired or separated solely on the basis of serologic evidence of HIV infection.

(DoDI 6485.01, October 17, 2006)


  • How can we say to a service member they are forbidden to ride in the back of a pick-up truck due to risk of personal injury, then if they defy this order we can deny medical costs and determine the injuries not in the line of duty, but we cannot say this for people who engage in risky sexual activity, deemed so risky by the US FDA as to forbid blood donations for those with who have even ONE MSM encounter?


–          How can it be said there is no impact on medical readiness when we mention a specific serious issue here by noting the special status of HIV?  

(Similar question and answer to the previous question).

–          Expected answer:  The military medical experts analyzed this and concluded there was no added risk.

Follow-up: point out the various data below that suggests added risks:

  • U S FDA BANS blood donations from MSM based upon substantiated risk blood contamination, so how can we ignore this risk?
  • How can process people out from medical “risk” conditions, but ignore the medical risk of conditions such as HIV, and the associated additional cost, which can be as much a $30K per year for treatment.
  • MSM have a 42 times higher chance of contracting HIV, that is by US CDC data


  • How can we say to a service member they are forbidden to ride in the back of a pick-up truck due to risk of personal injury, then if they defy this order we can deny medical costs and determine the injuries not in the line of duty, but we cannot say this for people who engage in risky sexual activity, deemed so risky by the US FDA as to forbid blood donations for those with who have even ONE MSM encounter?


–          IF somehow there is mention that we cannot have policies that would direct the private and personal sexual behavior of individuals, then: 

  • Point out that last month (Jan 2011) an Air Force enlisted man was convicted of failing to follow a lawful order to use condoms and notify partners of his HIV status.  To direct a person to wear a condom and to make specific notification of their medical status is pretty personal, so if that is a lawful order, then how can it not be also be lawful to just specifically prohibit risky sexual behavior, a much better point of intrusion than after permanent damage has already been done!  Then we might find those who persist in that prohibited activity and then become ill NOT in the line of duty and have them bear personal responsibility for their own medical costs, just like the AWOL sailor that gets injured, or the sailor that falls out of the back of a pickup truck when misconduct is verified.

–          Why is the Navy DADT Repeal website not available to the public?  Why is it (Common Access Card – ID card, login required) CAC protected?

–          Expected Answer: 1) Dodge the question. 2) It is sensitive and we want to implement using strong leadership. (an actual answer received basically admitted there was specific consideration to control the message and analysis of this information, keeping it limited was specifically intended!)

  • Follow-up: (using these points to show the unneeded and potentially agenda driven purpose for limiting the distribution).
  • This is clearly NOT classified data, and is clearly subject to the Freedom of Information Act release, so why require CAC protection which prevents access to the training materials from the general public? 
  • If this truly will not impact readiness and is accepted by the military members and the public, then there is no reason to limit distribution of the training materials.


–          How do we handle the situation if a sailor crosses dresses for attendance at a Navy social event?

–          Expected Answer:  The Navy has standards and limitations that are required for good order and discipline.  Currently this would not be permitted under current policy and regulation, and that will not change with this policy.

  • Follow-up: Ok, fair enough but if we can have standards and restrictions that differ from the normal freedoms enjoyed in the civilian world, where this would have to be permissible as free expression, then how can we on one hand enforce the acceptance of an open homosexual lifestyle, then on the other hand restrict activity and expressions that often are often associated with this lifestyle.  Isn’t that creating a very difficult and near impossible set of policies and circumstances which will ultimately erode good order and discipline?
  •  Expected answer:  Repetition of previous answer, then maybe:  we just have to make it work and individualize resolution to issues at the lowest level possible.
    • Follow-up: OK, but that makes me really concerned that this will erode good order and discipline as it will be a difficult thing to enforce, and the new allowance of open gays seems to come with some very restrictive and not well defined qualifications.  We’ll need to specifically address these types of issues to ensure we are consistent in our handling of such issues across the Navy.


Actual Policy questions

Not recommended for the discussion phase of required training, since they specifically set rules to avoid discussion about the wisdom of the actual policy change, but good questions to ask the trainers if given the opportunity before or after your training session, or to ask your representatives in congress or others when discussing this issue:

–          If we can and do have the need to limit personal behavior on and off duty, and we can set standards for conduct even in private, then how can we not limit or restrict behavior that is known to create additional medical risk and which creates all kinds of difficult personnel issues that will further stress the leaders at all levels in the chain of command.  Are we saying that this is additional burden is now required?

  • Possible explanation:  The military working group evaluated this issue, and the public has moved to much more tolerance or homosexuality, so it is no longer required to have this policy to restrict opportunity on the account of sexual orientation.
  • Ok, well if that were true, then how can one of the most accepting states of all forms of behavior, California TWICE by voter initiative vote to ban homosexual marriage?  It seems the notion that somehow society and the military are now ready for this is seriously questionable at best.

–          The priority, speed and very controlled circumstances of this training to specifically require maximum face to face training from teams that include the CO/XO and CMC of each command is unprecedented.  It seems this massive leadership-intensive effort in itself suggests there will likely be contention and confusion that comes with this policy change.  Why is all of this needed when we have a high operational demand, declining budgets, and continued operations in 2 war zones? 

  • Doesn’t this massive effort confirm the senior leadership knows there is serious concern and question about the wisdom of this policy change, so they are making an unprecedented effort to structure the training to be done with senior leadership focus and doesn’t this also squelch feedback and honest concerns that may exist? 
  • This seems to be an effort to force unpopular change from the top down, which tends to confirm that perhaps society and military is not ready for this at all.  The speed of this effort and the inexplicable secrecy of the training information tends feed this perception.  Why must the training materials be of so limited distribution, and why is it so critical to have such an aggressive schedule of implementation?


Background and source data and analysis (DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK, but this will help expedite that effort with the source material and supporting data):












MORE (23 Mar 2011):

Finally it makes it out to the media!   It is even worse that depicted in this piece, perhaps I can post the some of the training here, it is NOT classified, or marked for limited distribution…


One Response to “Serious, Honest, Difficult, but Respectful Questions for Military Members to ask that are Based policy implementation for use at the Military Required DADT Repeal training that is Rapidly being implemented in the military.”

  1. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/serious-honest-difficult-but-respectful-quest… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: