Changed days? ... Maybe not.

[An Teallach]

One of my pet bugbears is the patronizing bolleaux surrounding the multi-million £ diversity industry in the public sector. In November the 3rd Joint Service Conference on Lesbian, Gay and Transexual (LGBT) Matters will take place over 2 days in London. If anyone fancies going, the gen is on DII or here (http://proud2serve.net/public/viewforum.php?f=60). You don't have to be gay to attend and it's a warrant to London.

I'll spare you the full agenda. However, it would get you at least a line in any game of bull****-bingo worth the name: 'Diversity Champions', 'LGBT Community Focus', 'E&D (= Equality & Diversity) Staff' - a Cdr (RN), Maj (Army) and Gp Capt & WO (RAF), 'LGBT Workstrand' and 'Front-line Unit E&D Advisor'.

The project officer posted a suggested agenda and asked for discussion and further items in March. It's nearly August and not one reply on the Service Poofters' website ( http://www.proud2serve.net/public/index.php). Yours truly thought he'd help out with:

Leaving the transgender lads and lasses aside for the moment, here’s a few ‘agenda items’ for the gay chaps and chapesses to ponder:

1. Is my sexual orientation any of my employer’s business?

2. As a gay person, am I a different sailor, soldier or airperson?

3. Will there be a Tri-Service conference for Scottish Servicepeople or those with ginger hair?

4. If there is, and I am a gay, ginger, Scottish Serviceman who is part black and half Asian, will I be able to attend all 5 conferences at public expense?

The post was deleted within a day and the conference project officer / webmaster sent an e-mail not really explaining why but entitled 'Conference Positivity' and asking me not to post any comeback on the forum. I replied as follows:
Hi [webmaster]

I never dreamed that posting a set of questions essentially questioning whether the conference should be taking place at all would be so contentious as to warrant being deleted in toto.

One wonders if days have changed that much in that it is merely a different prevailing orthodoxy that brooks no questioning. However, if I remain interested in the answers to those questions, I'll raise them on other forums.


My own feeling is that it is patronizing, accentuates irrelevant differences in a professional environment, is less likely to promote acceptance and is a monumental waste of scarce defence funds. Quite apart from which, a small vocal minority appoints itself as the voice of gay servicepeople. But the reason for posting here is to find out: What the general feeling is on conferences for gay Servicepeople?

Before anyone gets on their E&D high horse, I am an Ex-Serviceman who happens to be a poof (I prefer the term to the more PC 'LGBT') who was one of the few who fought through the courts to get rid of the old regime and the fluffy Nu-Labour Govt peed nigh-on £0.5M up the wall fighting me until 4 months ago.

[tablet_eraser]

I have a gay RM friend. He has done nothing outrageous other than to be gay. He's not a screaming queen. So far he has been physically assaulted, verbally threatened and ostracised by his unit. His Col Sgt has been the orchestrator and proponent of much of the abuse. His CO is doing little to help.

A couple of months ago, a squaddie at Catterick was brutally gang-raped by his room-mates for being 'gay' even though there is still no evidence to prove his sexuality one way or the other.

I had an airman colleague a couple of years ago who had excrement smeared on his door when he came out.

AT, if things have really changed, maybe you could pass the message on to those people. This conference is about giving a voice to people who are, albeit on a smaller scale than a few years ago, still bullied and mistreated. I see nothing wrong with asking Their Airships what they are doing to help. And as angry as you may be that we're allowed to hold such a conference, maybe you'd like to consider your relative position as someone who doesn't have to put up with it any more, and the position of those of us who just want to get on with our jobs but can't because someone happens to dislike our "lifestyle choice".

I hold no truck with the PC brigade; this is a pragmatic way of confronting senior officers with the facts. Whether it delivers the results remains to be seen, of course, but at least you could give it a chance.

[Tigs2]

AT

Your post has me a bit confused, and amused in the same vein. You use the term 'Service Poofters' and imply that you can be excused that term because you yourself are a 'poofter'. The term iself has been deemed derogitory in EO policy. If any hetrosexual serviceman were to use that phrase with a gay serviceman they would be in trouble. So why is it ok for you to use it? It like the use of the word n****r, by young blacks amongst each other, that is cool, but if you are white and say it to a young black, they will call the police, who will do you for racism.

Just confused thats all!

[An Teallach]

Cheers, Tigs
As I say I prefer the term to the alphabet soup of LGBT, just a personal preference, that's all. If someone got upset at one of my straight mates calling me a big poof, I'd tell said someone where to get off. Oddly enough, I find the N word offensive (unless applied to Guy Gibson's canine companion!).

TE

Bullying and harassment are not gay issues, but Service-wide issues. What the Services need to address are the bullies and harassers. Individual characteristics of the victims are nigh-on irrelevant to the problem.

[Tigs2]

AT
I am not having a go mate, as you know we have been cohorts in many campaigns and arguments on here and ARRSE. I am genuinly confused as to your stance. On one side there has been a massive struggle by people in the Gay community to get acceptance and equal rights, but on the other side your words seem to be taking the piss out of that community, something which I would not feel comfortable doing. A close mate of mine confided in me he was gay and i would not dream of causing offence. I don't mind talking about the issues
I agree that the positive discrimination that is publisized by events such as the conference you are mentioning is another thing that is undesirable. Everyone should just get on with things and let it be. Positive discrimination is as damaging and offensive as any other form of predjudism.

[An Teallach]

Tigs

Everyone should just get on with things and let it be. Positive discrimination is as damaging and offensive as any other form of predjudism.

Interesting word, prejudism! ;) I'd call it prejudice but railing against positive discrimination was the main part of my point.

I was chatting to a mate who's planning to go to the 'conference' tonight. We agreed that he and 95% of the attenders would be sat there praying for the PC bolleaux to end and the bar to open, and a fair part of me takes my hat off to them for wangling a hoot and roar in London at HM's expense, even if it means recovering while listening to 2 days of bovine excrement.

My view is there's no such thing as the 'gay community' any more than there is a 'straight community'. There are people who happen to be gay and there is a small minority who want special treatment and conferences.

My concern is that such things will work against the stated aim which to my mind is 'sexuality is a professional irrelevance' and will cause resentment. Whether that is the case is what I'd like to gauge from the wider PPRuNe community.

[Tigs2]

AT
I thought three times (not twice!) about using the word 'community'. I bow out mate, i have no quarms for reasons already discussed. Everyone needs to grow up into the demands of the 21st century, which in this case should be quoted as 'there are no demands'

Tig2:ok:

[TonkaEngO]

AT,
Although maybe not widespread but.....
A few months ago I did my usual arrival chat with a very amiable, articulate and well mannered SAC. At the end of the chat I asked if he had any questions/concerns and he said that he was gay - and didn't want to hide the fact, nor did he want to parade up and down the crew room in drag. He asked me to spread the word amongst the seniors and I agreed. No more heard apart from one of the guys that I told said 'and?'.
Next beercall a pair of Y fronts appeared on the 'Trophy Undies Wall' in the bar- "to make *******feel at home".
Fully and totally accepted by all of his colleagues.
I am sure that this is the case in many of the shop floor occurences of LGB etc etc issues. Just a pity that the higher echelons cant follow the same path.

OK - I can deal with gay and ginger, but Scottish as well !!!!!

[An Teallach]

Tonka

Absolute class! Please inform whichever wit thought of that gag that he did more for Equality & Diversity in the RAF by pinning a pair of shreddies to the wall than no end of spouting bovine excrement at conferences at (conservatively) £60K a pop ever will.

[ORAC]

AT, something to lighten your day....

Harry's Place: It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married) (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/07/25/its_all_because_the_gays_are_getting_married.php)

[ARINC]

TonkaEngo
I'm not gay, but you and your colleagues enlightened attitude do you complete credit, one of the few improvements I've observed in service life since I left a few years ago.

[PingDit]

The 'shreds' thing was obviously a great ice-breaker and a good idea. I've worked with U.S. servicemen/women for the last few years now. Their view is that you shouldn't ask and similarly, don't tell. It may be viewed by some to be a somewhat blinkered view, but it actually seems to work. If anyone brings anything like that up in service conversation, it's immediately frowned upon. I don't actually give a hoot what peoples preferences are, just keep them private, anything that follows will only be speculation by third parties.

PingDit

[tablet_eraser]

The 'shreds' thing was obviously a great ice-breaker and a good idea. I've worked with U.S. servicemen/women for the last few years now. Their view is that you shouldn't ask and similarly, don't tell. It may be viewed by some to be a somewhat blinkered view, but it actually seems to work. If anyone brings anything like that up in service conversation, it's immediately frowned upon. I don't actually give a hoot what peoples preferences are, just keep them private, anything that follows will only be speculation by third parties.

An admirable view on the whole; I agree that the best way to progress is for sexuality to become as important to people as gender - i.e., to be completely forgotten about. When people feel confident enough to banter with a gay airman, it's a true sign that he's been accepted; we thrive on banter, after all (even CAS says so!).

But the problem with Don't Ask Don't Tell is that it maintains an unfair status quo; banter, for example, would be out of the question. What about taking partners to mess functions? What about married quarters for civilly-partnered personnel? You can't get away from the fact that some gay people are open about who they are, as a matter of necessity when it comes to civil partnerships. I don't think that's a problem per se; I'd have problems with someone making it the central issue in their workplace, to be sure, but people should feel comfortable with introducing their partners to colleagues. It's just fair!

I think that there are still some problems to be ironed out; still some institutional reluctance to accept change. Certainly not at our level, where I think things have moved on, but at higher levels. The conference gives people a chance to confront senior officers with these difficulties and to get information from the horses' mouths, so to speak.

And while I agree with AT that bullying is a service-wide issue, I think that the examples I highlighted (although a small sample) indicate a worrying culture of homophobia that still lingers on. I think that the old cultures of racism and sexism have been successfully eradicated; homophobia is on its way to being eradicated as well, but at the moment there are some very senior officers who treat it as a complete irrelevance. They're the ones we're trying to engage with. As I said earlier, I know you disagree with the conference, but please give it a chance. Trying to change your views is, I know, a lost cause, but I will at least pray your forbearance!

[Wader2]

TE,

slightly off topic but relevant in the don't ask don't tell or no banter mode.

In one very large continental air force a compliment by a superior male to a subordinate female can get the former on a sexual harassment charge.

Similarly, "Hi Honey, can you get me a cup of coffee?" would getyou into hot water.

[An Teallach]

ORAC

It'll have to brighten my evening, the IT Stalinists here deem whatever's at your link not to be wholesome enough for my lunchtime browsing!

PingDit

DADT sounds fine but is the worst of all worlds in practice. It is, in fact, DADT Don't be found out. Gay folk aren't prepared to furtle (what a magnificent word!) around in the bushes any more and being seen coming out of a gay pub or club is enough to cause dismissal. Futhermore one is still left with exposure to blackmail and the concomitant security problems.
The US Armed forces have lost over 90 Arabic linguists to this nonsense since GW2 started as well as thousands of other Servicepeople.

Wader

"Hi Honey, can you get me a cup of coffee?"
If I came out with that to any of my (mainly mature female) staff, I fear Taggart would be round pronto as there had "Been a murrrdurrr!"

TE

Did you watch the films Clapham Junction or the equally instructive A Very British Sex Scandal on C4 last week? I doubt there is a culture of homophobia anywhere nowadays. There are too many folk 'out' such that every extended family in the country probably has an openly gay member by now.
Homophobia is largely a pathological affair involving folk who are so far back in the closet they give their postal addresses as BFPO Narnia. It can range from (in the old days), the homosexual RAFP Queerhunter-General, (nowadays) the homosexual Snr Officer / SNCO spouting off about these dreadful shirtlifters to the seriously screwed-up type who will beat the crap out of the guy they've just spent the night with in a fit of fear, guilt and shame.

It's a pity, but those living in Narnia past the age of 40 will probably stay there for the rest of their lives. At least nowadays they can't officially vent their fury and project their self-loathing onto other gay chaps. I can't imagine any of them attending a conference, not that a conference would be any good for them. You'll probably have to wait for the old queens to retire (and there are plenty of them).

None of the foregoing means that anyone who calls you a poof is a homophobe, which is a massively overused word among the ghettoistas.
You're right though: We'll always disagree on conferences, monitoring, workstrands and all the other pointless paraphernalia of the diversity industry. I come from the equality generation where we fought for our sexuality to be the irrelevance it should be in a professional environment. I'll never be convinced that my employer needs to support and engage with me as a gay man. I'd far rather my employer just engaged with me and my colleagues as people.

Perhaps if the high-heidyins had spent more time worrying about how to retain Tablet Eraser the person, rather than fartarseing around with diversity worrying about Tablet Eraser the gay chap, you might not be PVRing as I get the impression from your posts elsewhere that your reasons for going have nothing to do with your sexuality.

Anyway, back to work!

[tablet_eraser]

AT,

Furtling is a magnificent word and should be used more often!

Well we agree on the whole; sexuality should be an irrelevance. However, I think that there is still a residual culture of homophobia, and I refute the argument that most, or even many, homophobes are self-loathing gays (although there are some who fit that mould). The conference is about gay personnel engaging with the upper echelons, not the other way round.

It's a pity, but those living in Narnia past the age of 40 will probably stay there for the rest of their lives. At least nowadays they can't officially vent their fury and project their self-loathing onto other gay chaps. I can't imagine any of them attending a conference, not that a conference would be any good for them. You'll probably have to wait for the old queens to retire (and there are plenty of them).

I agree; and it's a shame that they're probably scared of themselves because they had to endure the environment that you and others fought to change. Hats off - without the past fights, we'd be no different now to how we were in 1999.

Perhaps if the high-heidyins had spent more time worrying about how to retain Tablet Eraser the person, rather than fartarseing around with diversity worrying about Tablet Eraser the gay chap, you might not be PVRing as I get the impression from your posts elsewhere that your reasons for going have nothing to do with your sexuality.

The Service is awful at looking after its people full-stop. I'm leaving because promotion prospects are dreadful, posting opportunities are pathetic and because Their Airships seem to care not a jot for their personnel. My being gay has nothing to do with it; the RAF has put no more effort into me than into anyone else (and nor should it - if it's treating people poorly, everyone should be treated equally poorly!!).

[An Teallach]

ORAC

Now out of Stalinist clutches, my evening has definitely been brightened by your link. Many thanks.

TE

You say the point of the conference is for you to address the high-heidyins. Maybe you're right, but we come to that conclusion from different perspectives. There was a lot of hooraying when the RAF signed up with Stonewall. I found it a retrograde step. This is perhaps best illustrated by Fisking Air Cdre Hughesdon's RAF News article (http://www.proud2serve.net/news/20070119-RAFJoinsDiversityChampions.htm) explaining the move:

Stonewall is one of the leading organisations addressing the needs of lesbians, homosexual men and bisexuals and 'Diversity Champions' provides a forum for employers to share best practice in promoting diversity in the workplace.

The scheme has more than 250 members from the public and private sectors including the Royal Navy and the MOD Civil Service. The RAF's move attracted coverage in the national media with claims that it was planning to spend tens of thousands of pounds on advertising for recruits in the gay media.
So why did the RAF join?

The Armed Forces have, frankly, a chequered history in addressing sexual orientation issues. While the RAF, in conjunction with MOD generally, has now fully met its statutory obligations, we still know relatively little about how our personnel policies, and underpinning culture, are directly or indirectly affecting lesbian, gay and bisexual members. Indeed, it could well be argued that the lesbian, gay and bisexual community has been under-represented when considering wider RAF diversity issues, partly since sexual orientation is neither as overt as skin colour or gender nor as identifiable via symbols of religious affiliation.

By joining the Stonewall 'Diversity Champions' programme we will be in a better position to ensure that the policies we have in place are not inadvertently working against RAF personnel of any sexual orientation.
We will also be able to take advantage of advice to ensure that our policies mark the RAF out as an equal opportunity employer, thus promoting recruitment and retention.

Stonewall is one of the leading organisations addressing the needs of lesbians, homosexual men and bisexuals ...

Personally, Id rather be called a poof than a homosexual. That is a C19th term dreamed up by quacks when we were thought to be diseased / disordered. Assuming the good Air Cdre to be straight (fairly or unfairly), why does he think he needs to employ professional poofs from Stonewall or folk from the CRE to find out that, wait for it ... the professional needs of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and black people are ... (this will come as a mighty shock so prepare yourself) ... no different to his own.

The Armed Forces have, frankly, a chequered history in addressing sexual orientation issues.

No, if we were mincing our words they have a chequered history. If we're being frank, the Armed forces have an appalling history on these issues. However, we're hopefully moving on from there.

we still know relatively little about how our personnel policies, and underpinning culture, are directly or indirectly affecting lesbian, gay and bisexual members.

Your personnel policies and official culture will affect all your people. Military officers are trained to look at everything from the other side's point of view. It should not be beyond your wit to examine your culture and policy with a view to how it will affect the men and women under your command. Now that you've stopped the queerhunts and are applying the equality legislation, your gay people will be affected exactly the same way as your straight people.

Indeed, it could well be argued that the lesbian, gay and bisexual community

Is there a heterosexual community? No there isn't. Why do you think gay men would wish to band together either in their own community or in conjunction with lesbians (with whom they have less in common that they have with straight men or women) or bisexuals to the exclusion of all others? People exist in communities within which you will find folk of all sorts; even gay ginger Scotsmen (Sorry TonkaEngO!).

sexual orientation is neither as overt as skin colour or gender nor as identifiable via symbols of religious affiliation

Yes, and this gives us a special insight into the ludicrousness of discrimination because we're the only people who, under the old regime, could become niggers overnight or, in my case, in the time it took to say "Yes".

ensure that the policies we have in place are not inadvertently working against RAF personnel of any sexual orientation.

The notion of indirect discrimination has been around since at least 1975. If you can't ensure that your policies are not inadvertently working against RAF personnel, then you shouldn't be in the job you're in or drawing the salary you're drawing. See also answer below.

thus promoting recruitment and retention

Well, since at my alleged re-entry interview the interviewer spent just under a third of the time telling me how bad it was nowadays and from other evidence, you seem to have fecked up royally (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=282531) on that one!

I can imagine no better example of a public service heirarchy being so desperate to analyze its workforce into separate 'diversity constituencies' and find their imagined individual needs that they've lost sight of the needs of their whole workforce. It will obviously be a surprise to the heirarchy when they eventually find out that the needs of each member of the workforce are by and large identical.

When I were a lad, it used to be called not being able to see the wood for the trees.