The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF.

[Rifleman62]

What do you do on a Winter FTX? Have separate tents for gender?

I don't think so. Not since the 1960's in the Militia.

 

[NSDreamer]

What do you do on a Winter FTX? Have separate tents for gender?

I don't think so. Not since the 1960's in the Militia.

I can't help but picture the following situation:
Sweet snowy winter, Wainwright Training Area:
A Sgt and 2Lt meet at night to discuss platoon lines on an exercise...

Sgt: Sir we don't have enough tent's to split them by Gender?|
2Lt: Sgt? Not enough troops, damn what was the RQ thinking. There's no helping it, we'll have to hooch.
Sgt: Sir? *not believing he heard it right*
2Lt: Don't worry Sgt, you can sleep in my tent with me, we're both men.
The Next Da
WO: Anyone seen the 2Lt today?
Sgt: Haven't seen him since last night Sir, he said he wanted to sleep in a hooch.
WO: Hrm, bloody stupid, he's probably buried under a foot under snow now...

 

[Loachman]

If only it was as simple as splitting by gender in order to satisfyJarnhamar's leadership.

There would have to be male heterosexual tents, individual male homosexual tents, female heterosexual tents, and individual female homosexual tents. One each male and female homosexual could be paired off to save some tentage, unless that creeps them out. What, however, does this leadership do with biexuals? Or transexuals? Would pre-op male-to-females and female-to-males have to be kept apart, or should they be kept together? I may have missed some possibilities.

This is stuff to blow a dinosaur's tiny brain.

 

[Old Sweat]

We have gone from a query about troops in a shack with single rooms and some control freak over controlling to fretting about operational detachments in the field. In the Sandbox mixed detachments shared the same austere accommodation and the common sense of the Canadian soldier at war was able to make it work.

 

[kratz]

The staff in one base had a good laugh when I arrive on a visit.
I was more than half unpacked and discovered I was in the shacks with a female,
two person room.  I was repacking when she arrived, we both smiled at the fax pax
and I returned to accommodations. The rancour I endured from the staff was
uncalled for due to their "mistake" but it was finally sorted it out.

 

[Pusser]

I am reminded of a situation on basic training years ago (when I was a young single guy full of hormones).  We were in a mixed platoon, but it was still in the days of separate standards (e.g. women were allowed lighter packs and were still prohibited in certain occupations).  We had just come to the end of a night move and we were exhausted.  It was also a moonless night, so it was pitch black in the Borden training area.  While trying to get something sorted, I switched on a flashlight and got an eyefull of a young lady in my platoon who was changing her shirt.  I said, "sorry!"  She said, "don't worry about it.  It's nothing you've never seen before," (albeit not that particular pair).  "OK" I said, and we both went to ground (in separate hooches) as soon as we could.

Notwithstanding some films, there's nothing sexy or erotic about sexual relations in an army field scenario, especially if you haven't bathed recently and there are mosquitos and poison ivy everywhere.

 

[dangerboy]

The idea of banning people to visit other rooms is an archaic rule and shows we don't trust our soldiers.  We can put them on a OP with live ammunition and go to sleep trusting our lives to them, but don't trust them to follow in a building in garrison.  Having been on course as a candidate and staff I found found that if people want to get together they will ban them from the rooms they will find other places.  Poison ivy will not stop them, I have seen troops with rashes in key locations.

 

[dimsum]

The idea of banning people to visit other rooms is an archaic rule and shows we don't trust our soldiers.  We can put them on a OP with live ammunition and go to sleep trusting our lives to them, but don't trust them to follow in a building in garrison.  Having been on course as a candidate and staff I found found that if people want to get together they will ban them from the rooms they will find other places.  Poison ivy will not stop them, I have seen troops with rashes in key locations.

Exactly. 

As an aside, the Norwegian army has trialled unisex dorm rooms.

http://time.com/36484/norwegian-army-unisex-dorms/

 

[The Bread Guy]

There would have to be male heterosexual tents, individual male homosexual tents, female heterosexual tents, and individual female homosexual tents. One each male and female homosexual could be paired off to save some tentage, unless that creeps them out. What, however, does this leadership do with biexuals? Or transexuals? Would pre-op male-to-females and female-to-males have to be kept apart, or should they be kept together? I may have missed some possibilities.

You'd need a rainbow of tentage ....
Seriously, have to agree with this short & sweet summary:

The idea of banning people to visit other rooms is an archaic rule and shows we don't trust our soldiers.  We can put them on a OP with live ammunition and go to sleep trusting our lives to them, but don't trust them to follow in a building in garrison.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Exactly. 

As an aside, the Norwegian army has trialled unisex dorm rooms.

http://time.com/36484/norwegian-army-unisex-dorms/

And in that experiment ....

.... the women so far report a cut in sexual harassment.

According to Ulla-Britt Lilleaas, co-author of the report "The Army: the vanguard, rear guard and battlefield of equality”, the women reported that sharing a room helped make them "one of the boys" ....

I know that Canada =/= Norway, but intriguing result nonetheless.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If shared accommodations are necessary, just keep the troops on a diet heavy in legumes and onions.  That should take all the potential romance out of any room.

 

[OldSolduer]

The idea of banning people to visit other rooms is an archaic rule and shows we don't trust our soldiers.  We can put them on a OP with live ammunition and go to sleep trusting our lives to them, but don't trust them to follow in a building in garrison.  Having been on course as a candidate and staff I found found that if people want to get together they will ban them from the rooms they will find other places.  Poison ivy will not stop them, I have seen troops with rashes in key locations.

well said. The very senior leadership of the CAF hasn't trusted anyone under the rank of BGen for thirty years.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And in that experiment ....I know that Canada =/= Norway, but intriguing result nonetheless.

Actually, having lived through the "civilizing" effect of the implementation of mixed crew at sea, I am not surprised at all. The reverse would have surprised me.

Note that they are not putting one man and one woman in a double room, but four men and two women in a six bunk room. The four men will self police their comments and attitude towards the two women in front of the other men, or else get policed by the other three if they slip - not to mention that the women themselves might just put them in their place in front of their mates, which they would not appreciate.

On the other hand, in the classic "divided" system, the fewer women (in my experience it is never a 50/50 ratio) were in a separate wing from their male platoon mates, to which the "male" member of the platoon had no access, and so, were often neglected in the post work days impromptu meetings/evening activities organizing and general post day fat-chewing that went on amongst the "guys" before even going at the agreed "rendez-vous" with the female members of the group . In the Norwegian new system, they are all physically co-located and this barrier disappears, so I am not surprised that the female members find themselves better integrated into the group dynamics.

 

[Messorius]

Actually, having lived through the "civilizing" effect of the implementation of mixed crew at sea, I am not surprised at all. The reverse would have surprised me.

Note that they are not putting one man and one woman in a double room, but four men and two women in a six bunk room. The four men will self police their comments and attitude towards the two women in front of the other men, or else get policed by the other three if they slip - not to mention that the women themselves might just put them in their place in front of their mates, which they would not appreciate.

On the other hand, in the classic "divided" system, the fewer women (in my experience it is never a 50/50 ratio) were in a separate wing from their male platoon mates, to which the "male" member of the platoon had no access, and so, were often neglected in the post work days impromptu meetings/evening activities organizing and general post day fat-chewing that went on amongst the "guys" before even going at the agreed "rendez-vous" with the female members of the group . In the Norwegian new system, they are all physically co-located and this barrier disappears, so I am not surprised that the female members find themselves better integrated into the group dynamics.

I was the only woman on a 45 person course last year.  For whatever reason, rules at this location were no  mixing  in rooms with the opposite sex unless course staff was present. Even having the door open(which was all that was required on a different base the year prior)wasn't acceptable.  Constant effort to not be forgotten about, getting timings, next to no social time with my section or platoon. You want to talk about a shit situation for morale.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I was the only woman on a 45 person course last year.  For whatever reason, rules at this location were no  mixing  in rooms with the opposite sex unless course staff was present. Even having the door open(which was all that was required on a different base the year prior)wasn't acceptable.  Constant effort to not be forgotten about, getting timings, next to no social time with my section or platoon. You want to talk about a shit situation for morale.

That really sucks for females trying to fit in and be treated the same as everyone else.

Last year I witnessed male soldiers getting crammed 3 and 4 to crew-tents in order to accommodate females having their own private tents.

 

[OldSolduer]

That really sucks for females trying to fit in and be treated the same as everyone else.

Last year I witnessed male soldiers getting crammed 3 and 4 to crew-tents in order to accommodate females having their own private tents.

This effort to be "correct" will cost us in the long term.

I've said it before.....20 years of briefing won't change basic biology.

 

[ModlrMike]

I must say that in all my time in Fd Amb, we never segregated females unless there was a large enough number to do so; which seldom occurred. For the most part, we had co-ed tenting. It was never an issue. Troops were expected to behave with decorum and consideration, which they always seemed to do. The only time it ever got to be an issue was when I had a detachment or UMS attached to another unit. Again, for the most part I was able to get my way and have all my troops bunk in the UMS lines without consideration for gender distribution.

This issue is only a problem because we make it so. There are ways to accommodate males and females together that preserve everyone's dignity and privacy. As someone else said, the troops will police themselves.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

It's funny (not really) how it's an issue in garrison but come time in the field, say winter ex it's a none issue.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest:

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will be asked by the House defence committee to review dishonourable discharge records for Canadian Forces members kicked out of the military for being gay.

The committee voted unanimously Tuesday to support a motion introduced by NDP defence and LGBT critic Randall Garrison to request that Sajjan authorize National Defence Ombudsman Gary Walbourne to review the 800 to 1,000 cases of Canadians who currently hold dishonourable discharge records from the military dating back from before the practice of punishing members for their sexuality was banned in 1992.

While the Liberal government indicated last spring it was “considering” an official apology to gay members dishonourably discharged for their sexuality, little has been heard about that plan since. Garrison said his own efforts to request a review of those still carrying that black mark on their service records have gone unanswered.

“I wrote to the minister of Defence on May 12 asking him to authorize this motion and have received no response,” Garrison said. “That’s why I’m putting this motion before committee.” ...

 

[Blackadder1916]

The latest:

. . . to review dishonourable discharge records for Canadian Forces members kicked out of the military for being gay.

Not wanting to offend or disrupt valid discussion, but again my pedantic gene compels me to bring notice that the terminology used is one usually associated with the United States military.  In the Canadian Forces, individuals are not "discharged" but "released".  We They also don't "dishonourably" release anyone, but however, do release "honourably".  The terminology used is:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-15.page

4) Where an officer or non-commissioned member is released, the notation on his record of service shall be as follows:
a.  if he is released under Item 1(a), the notation "Dismissed with Disgrace for Misconduct" or "Dismissed for Misconduct", as applicable;
b.  if he is released under Item 1 for any reason other than Item 1(a), the notation "Released for Misconduct";
c.  where he is released under Item 2, the notation "Service Terminated"; or
d.  where he is released under Item 3, 4 or 5, the notation "Honourably Released".

For those on these means who don't remember those days, the applicable regulation was CFAO 19-20 Homosexuality - Sexual Abnormality Investigation, Medical Examination and Disposal.  In that CFAO, the following is the part that indicates what release item will apply.  (in the copy used for the following quote, the last amendment is 1976)

Release Item
8.    Normally, the member should be released under item 5(d) of the table to QR&O 15.01.  However, if the member is to be released as a direct result of a conviction by a civil court or service tribunal, consideration shall be given effecting the release under item 2(a) of the table to QR&O 15.01.

9.    When a member is convicted by a civil court under the Criminal Court, e.g. Section 150 (Incest), Section 155 (Buggery or Bestiality), Section 156 (Indecent Assault on a Male), or Section 157 (Gross Indecency), the certificate of conviction and all the facts pertaining to the conviction shall be forwarded in accordance with QR&O 19.62.