Pentagon spokesman says SEGREGATION OF GAY TROOPS is a possibility

[Bluebear]

Yes we can!

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/07/tpm-pentagon-spokesman-says-segregation.html


Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell is hitting back against criticisms of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell survey, which was distributed to 400,000 members of the Armed Forces this week. Critics have blasted the survey for everything from its focus on the troops' supposed feelings about showering with gay and lesbian colleagues to its use of the bias-engendering term "homosexual." In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Morrell was having none of it...



Morrell also insisted that the questions with which most critics took the most umbrage -- i.e., those related to lifestyle issues like socializing outside of work as well as showering and sharing barracks with openly gay and lesbian colleagues (as though that does not currently occur) -- were developed as part of a process within the department and the working group to address the "privacy" issues of concern to heterosexual members of the military. Morrell said, "We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that did not address these questions," but insisted they were asked to help the military determine what adjustments might be necessary "when DADT is repealed."

In response to questions from reporters, Morrell clarified that the survey responses could lead the military to conclude that it would "perhaps need adjustments to facilities themselves," indicating that it is not outside the realm of possibility that, in order to preserve the privacy and modesty of heterosexual service members in group showers and barracks, the military would consider segregating gay and lesbian service members in some way.

When quizzed about the development of the survey questions, Morrell admitted that they didn't consult with advocacy groups about the design of the survey, leaving that to the professionals at Westat, the private contractor who developed the questions in consultation with the Pentagon and working group.

Morrell stumbled through a line of questioning from The Advocate about the inclusion of the word "homosexual" in the survey which has been shown in surveys to bias responses. Morrell insisted that the survey used the term "only seven times" and only when the question required a yes or no answer. He then added:

We are well aware that homosexual is a loaded term, but it is a term that is in the law and policy... And it is a term that most people in our forces are familiar with."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/pentagon-slams-critics-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-survey.php?ref=fpb

[Jamastiene]

1. K&R for awareness.

:facepalm: for their stupidity.

[Cherchez la Femme]

55. Indeed

[Robb]

2. No, unfair characterization on the facilities.

There's a lot fucked up here, but that's reading too much into what was said.

"Adjustments to facilities" doesn't automatically mean segregation. It can mean a lot of things.

[grantcart]

10. agreed There is a general trend in the design of on base dormitory

facilities for enlisted people to have more individual privacy and less shared space.

Unless there is something specific that the Spokesman said the use of the term 'segregated' does not fit with what the spokesman acutally said.

[Prism]

21. For the love of . . . really? Really?

Do you really think that comment, in the context of a DADT discussion, is some innocuous remark unrelated to the subject at hand?

"Yes, DADT is a very serious issue, and while we're addressing it, we'd also like to take this opportunity to announce we will be redecorating the barracks!"

They're addressing facilities adjustments in the context of a DADT repeal. How else should one read that, except in response to the inclusion of openly gay soldiers in the military? What, the facility adjustments are just incidental and totally unrelated to the DADT issue that is the entire point of the discussion?

Really?

Can't people unapologetically side with LGBTers just once on an issue?

Just for kicks. Just to try it out and see what it's like to concretely support the gay community in practice instead of vague platitudes.

I'm not saying you have to totally support the community. All I'm asking is that you don't bend over backwards and reach ridiculous, afactual rationalizations and conclusions to defend ill-conceived homophobic nonsense because it's going on under a Democratic administration.

Too much effort to give it a go?

[Robb]

23. Try that with me.

I've been on the right side of every LGBT issue to come down the pike in the last several decades -- and especially the one I've spent here. You're welcome to examine my record of practice -- and platitudes, if you will.

I suggest you read the entire quote, which is reproduced below. There is, as I've said, plenty that is fucked up here. The entire survey, for example, and the notion that somehow civil rights should be left up to -- or even be INFORMED by -- a vote or poll.

However injecting the notion that the military is suggesting segregation is factually inaccurate and serves no purpose.

[Prism]

24. Then what are they suggesting?

I'm all ears. They're discussing the integration of gay soldiers in the military and mention there may need to be facilities adjustments.

In your opinion, what facility adjustments would be needed in the face of gay integration?

[Robb]

26. Think about it this way:

He also said there might need to be education adjustments.

Does that automatically lead you to believe he means "teach straight soldiers that gay soldiers are inferior?" :shrug:

p.s. I re-read my previous post, and it reads like I was barking at you. Not my intention of tone.

[Prism]

27. That doesn't answer the question.

You feel that reading segregated facilities (or it's euphemistic cousin, increasing privacy) into these remarks is an unreasonable interpretation or assumption.

Assuming I am wrong, what other reasonable interpretations are there in regards to facilities adjustments? What kind of adjustments would gay integration warrant?

[Robb]

30. You're asking if I think there is an architectural way to defeat bigotry?

Of course not.

There are bigots in the world, you know that as well as I. And there are a LOT of them in uniform, many with fancy jewelry on their chest to boot, which means they will probably be accommodated in whatever fucked-up way they think makes sense. In the coming weeks they will push for a bunch of silly stuff we will have a good time exposing as the products of their bigotry, as well.

But there will be things they absolutely won't get to do -- like having straight-only barracks, which is what the article in the OP is suggesting.

And forgive me, but every time I read someone like the goddamn Pentagon Press Secretary use a phrase like "when DADT is repealed," I still feel good, no matter what other nonsense comes out of his mouth. :)

[Prism]

36. It still isn't an answer though

I'm not trying to be difficult in pressing the point, but I'm genuinely puzzled about what facilities adjustments entail. My initial feeling upon hearing that phrase is that we'll see new "privacy options" if/when DADT is repealed. No one in government in their right mind will ever use the word segregation. They won't have to. They can euphemize the hell out of it for political consumption.

Reading the original remarks and various opinions on the story, I still haven't found a single viable explanation for what that phrase means.

[Bluebear]

39. I can't see who you're talking to but what else could it mean?

"the modesty of heterosexual service members" indeed.

[Robb]

50. It's our thinking that's more important.

I can give you 20 ideas of what it could mean, and 20 arguments as to why each one probably isn't what he specifically meant. Same as segregation -- we'll read whatever we want into his intentionally vague remarks. That's the double-edged sword of being a press secretary for the government. Or, as a friend once said, "This isn't a press conference, it's a fucking Rorschach test!" :D

We'll see, of course. But I doubt we'll see segregated barracks -- by any name.

[grantcart]

40. I didn't realize that misquoting or putting words into the mouth of a spokesman

was part fo the GLBT agenda.

Bad journalism is bad journalism.

Nothing the spokesman said indicated that forces would be physically segregated.

Nothing I said had to do with decoration.

The facts are that over the last several years the military has gone from large multiple occupancy rooms to more intimate rooms with more privacy.


Beyond all of that is the issue that no serviceman is required to live on base and about 40 percent - single and married choose to live off base, so that when the spokesman talks of changing the physical structure it would only apply to on base houseing. Is the TPM reporter suggesting that they would segregate only those that chose to live on base? I deal with a lot of same sex enlisted couples at Camp Pendleton, needless to say they all opt to live off base.

[jody]

3. k&r for awareness of the issue. n/t

[QC]

4. How very, very hopeful and changealicious! n/t

[Bluebear]

66. .

[anarch]

5. wow, there's a really great idea

maybe we should wall off part of California while we're at it, and move all the civilian homosexuals there...call it the United Gays of America. Since, you know, segregation always works out so good as a public policy.


*a million facepalms*

[stray cat]

6. Maybe we should do away with separate facilities for men and women

then we won't need to maintain more than one set of facilities and everyone can use them at any time. No segregation of men, women, gay or straight.

[grantcart]

7. While you have correctly quoted the TPM article,

The TPM article does not appear to quote the spokesman in any way suggesting that GLBT will be segregated.

Evidently they are speculating based on this statement, "perhaps need adjustments to facilities themselves."


I unuderstood that statement as meaning that maybe they would give enlisted serviceman more privacy with more individual quarters and bathing facilities, something that has been a general trend in recent dormitories at Camp Pendleton anyway.


If you have an actual quote from the spokesman indicating that they would consider actual segregation, and not increased individual privacy, then I would be most interested in that quote.


It appears to me that TPM is adding its own interpretation to what was said.

[noamnety]

13. Were you part of the conference call?

If not, perhaps the rest of us should assume the most accurate interpretation came from those who heard the full conversation.

[Robb]

16. Geoff Morrell, verbatim:

“...We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn’t address these questions, because when ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios. But we won’t know any of that until we get a sense from the force of their attitudes. It could turn out, based on this survey, that there are far fewer concerns than we are led to believe. There could more or different concerns than we had anticipated....”

Sound like segregation to you? The transcript of the entire call is on the DoD website.

[donco6]

70. I see the article. Where's the transcript of the call? n/t

[donco6]

74. crickets.

So is there a transcript or not?

[treestar]

62. Just shower stalls for everybody

Or for the few who are worried about the issue.

[sabrina 1]

8. So they knew 'homosexual' was a loaded term but used it

anyhow. He should have remained silent, because what he said is only going to make things worse.

This eg, is ridiculous:

Morrell also insisted that the questions with which most critics took the most umbrage -- i.e., those related to lifestyle issues like socializing outside of work as well as showering and sharing barracks with openly gay and lesbian colleagues (as though that does not currently occur) -- were developed as part of a process within the department and the working group to address the "privacy" issues of concern to heterosexual members of the military.

Why is that not a concern now when gays cannot be identified or face being thrown out of the military? In fact, if we are to accept his point that heteros need privacy, then they MUST rescind DADT. How else can that be privacy be assured? So, I'm sure he's come to the same conclusion by now, let gays serve openly and everyone will be happy ....

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. That's going to be the most popular platoon in the brigade.

[Odin2005]

11. WTF!?!

[IndianaGreen]

12. K&R because this has been a set up from the gitgo

[Bluebear]

31. No truer words spoken. nt

[joeybee12]

47. Oh yeah, so our 'fierce advocate" can say, "Well, I tried..." n/t

[donco6]

72. Yes. We all saw it and said so.

But now that we see the direction it's heading, we evidently can't be trusted to predict the outcome. But we'll see. They'll get the surveys back, find out that "thousands" of servicemembers are uncomfortable, calculate some bogus cost to "retrofit" bases, and throw the whole thing out as "unaffordable."

[Prophet 451]

14. This just gets sillier every day

I don't know why the US insists on reinventing the wheel so often but it's not like there isn't plentiful data available on this. Loads of countries have openly gay troopers in their militaries and in every case, it has ended up being no big deal.

[RKP5637]

17. The US loves reinventing the wheel as it makes money for someone to not

use more than amble available information from other countries. Of course only the US knows how to do anything and often F's it up, wastes money and gobs of time.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Geezus Fucking Kerist On A Trailer Hitch

This country is going fucking CRAZY.

[RKP5637]

18. It's beyond CRAZY anymore. GO USA! GO USA! GO USA! We're setting a

whole new record for craziness in the Guinness World Records.

[Bluebear]

67. You said it.

[malaise]

22. Well since the military needs 'the gays'

a gazzilion times more than gays need the military, perhaps the time has come for them to tell the military to fuck the hell off.

CRAZY does not come close to describing what is going on these days.

[Bonobo]

19. Obama owns this. I am so disappointed. nt

[walldude]

20. Hmmm.. I seem to remember you taking a wall of shit

for daring to think that the DADT survey wasn't going to be a fair or accurate way to deal with the DADT issue. Are you ready to eat your words? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


I look forward to the day when you are wrong my friend...

[Bluebear]

32. Well, since the survey results are 'already released' and everything

I wish I WERE wrong on these situations! :toast:

[ruggerson]

25. I refuse to believe that the first black President would preside over formal segregation

Obama is far from a stupid human being. He should immediately understand that this would create a firestorm.

[EFerrari]

28. I remember this guy from some other thing during BushCo.

He's a career douche and the last person that should be fronting this mess. Stupid.

[rhett o rick]

29. Wow, cool. How about "seperate but equal"? Has a great ring right?

Where is our Pres on this?

[rusty fender]

49. I recall that during the '08 campaign

candidate Obama declared his opposition to gay marriage, but said that he would accept domestic partnerships. I wrote that Obama was advocating the "separate, but equal" position on this. I was shocked that this was his position, but there ya go.

[Bluebear]

65. :crickets:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scarletwoman]

35. I'm sorry, but words fail me.

:banghead:

[Starry Messenger]

37. What else could it mean, but segregation of some kind?

This article is written in the context of the bigoted survey and questions about that. If the military was just going to switch to individual shower stalls or something, why wouldn't they just say that? And again, who the fuck cares about who they shower with?? In the name of fuck, this whole period of shame will be looked back on with scorn.

[QC]

45. But it will be good segregation, since our guys will bein charge of it.

Kinda like the way wars are OK when our people are in charge of the killing.

[Solly Mack]

38. K&R

Chapter the bigots.

[readmoreoften]

41. Even without the hot water afforded to the straight troops, it'll still be the nicest and funnest

barracks of all! And, gosh, that has to be some kind of comfort.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sebastian Doyle]

52. Thanks for visiting, Pastor Fred

Here's a pizza, just for you......

[FreeState]

56. Here - read this and educate yourself on the topic

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2114

It's a commonplace observation that survey results depend on how questions are worded. But I don't think I've ever seen a larger effect of synonym-substitution than the one reported by a recent CBS News/New York Times poll about the U.S. military's DADT ("Don't Ask Don't Tell") policy.

Question: Do you favor or oppose ___ serving in the military?

"Homosexuals" "Gay Men & Lesbians"
Strongly Favor 34% 51%
Somewhat Favor 25% 19%
Somewhat Oppose 10% 7%
Strongly Oppose 19% 12%

On the face of it, the two wordings of the question seem to refer to exactly the same set of circumstances. But do they? Do (many) people these days think, for example, that "gay men and lesbians" refers to sexual orientation, while "homosexuals" refers to sexual practices? Or is this large difference in the distribution of opinions purely a question of connotation?

A similarly striking effect was seen in responses to the question "Do you favor or oppose ___ being allowed to serve openly?" Changing the description from "homosexuals" to "gay men and lesbians" swung opinion in favor from 44% to 58%, and opinion in opposition from 42% to 28%:

"Homosexuals" "Gay Men & Lesbians"
Favor 44% 58%
Oppose 42% 28%

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

71. African Americans were called "Coloreds" back in the 50's

This homosexual doesn't pine for those days.

:wtf:

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VMI Dem]

43. Jesus.

I'm speechless.

[WinkyDink]

44. AWESOME! "Out Gays Here"; "Closeted Gays to the Right"; "Insecure Hets, Straight Ahead."

[Renew Deal]

46. I'd put the chances of that happening at 0%

Lots of things are possible. It doesn't mean they'll ever happen and this will never happen.

[bobbolink]

48. "modesty of heterosexual troops" ~~ So, THAT'S why there are so many rapes in the military!

Who knew?

Gotta love this catapulting of the propaganda!

[Bluebear]

68. +

[newtothegame]

51. Ok, I'm naive apparently. I thought "homosexual" WAS the PC term.

What's loaded about it and what is the alternative people are suggesting?

[FreeState]

57. See unthread - homosexual used in a survey always skews the results to negative

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2114

"It's a commonplace observation that survey results depend on how questions are worded. But I don't think I've ever seen a larger effect of synonym-substitution than the one reported by a recent CBS News/New York Times poll about the U.S. military's DADT ("Don't Ask Don't Tell") policy.

Question: Do you favor or oppose ___ serving in the military?

"Homosexuals" "Gay Men & Lesbians"
Strongly Favor 34% 51%
Somewhat Favor 25% 19%
Somewhat Oppose 10% 7%
Strongly Oppose 19% 12%

On the face of it, the two wordings of the question seem to refer to exactly the same set of circumstances. But do they? Do (many) people these days think, for example, that "gay men and lesbians" refers to sexual orientation, while "homosexuals" refers to sexual practices? Or is this large difference in the distribution of opinions purely a question of connotation?

A similarly striking effect was seen in responses to the question "Do you favor or oppose ___ being allowed to serve openly?" Changing the description from "homosexuals" to "gay men and lesbians" swung opinion in favor from 44% to 58%, and opinion in opposition from 42% to 28%:

"Homosexuals" "Gay Men & Lesbians"
Favor 44% 58%
Oppose 42% 28%

[Bluebear]

59. Thanks for asking. It's a clinical term.

You will not hear a gay or lesbian person say "Hi, I'm a homosexual!"

The clinical term is almost always used by a rightwinger with an agenda.

[pipi_k]

53. Like someone else said...it could mean lots of other things

than "segregation of gay troops".

Maybe adjustment of facilities only means separate shower area for anyone who doesn't feel comfortable showering with the general population. Which could include anyone.

As a female, I've never felt comfortable about showering with anyone else, even with other females, lesbian or not.

The whole gay issue never even entered/enters into it.

If I were in the military, I would greatly appreciate a separate showering facility, and that's just my thing. So gays wouldn't necessarily be "segregated". It could be for anyone, and who is to say that there aren't gays who just don't want to shower in front of their own gender for whatever reasons.

[Bluebear]

60. Sorry. Quote: 'preserve the privacy and modesty of heterosexual service members'

And it's being discussed in the context of the DADT survey. How could you come up with any other conclusion?

[pipi_k]

77. Yeah, that's what that Morrell guy said.

Sounded like his opinion on what may or may not happen with regards to the "segregated" showers.

That doesn't mean that's actually what the military might decide.

In fact, the military may decide not to do anything at all.

[Bluebear]

79. "That Morrell guy" is the Pentagon spokesman. Why are you excusing this?

[KamaAina]

54. Does this mean we get a gay version of the Tuskegee Airmen?

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

73. Yes

[treestar]

61. Privacy and Modesty

Does anyone really think of that in a barracks shower? Give them all individual showers - why now shower stalls?

Or have the gay men shower with women and the lesbians with the men. Now no one is showering with the group they are sexually interested in.

This is dumb. Why should anyone be uncomfortable - people are just there to take a shower not to inspect everyone else.

[grantcart]

63. increasing privacy has been a stated objective of new base construction

and renovation since 2006

If you google it you can find lots of examples, like this:


http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/bldormitories.htm


Air Force officials have developed a new dormitory standard designed to enhance the standard of living for residents of Air Force dormitories worldwide.

Construction on the four-plus-one style of dormitory could begin as early as this year (FY 2003). This style has four airmen sharing a common living area, complete with a kitchen and living room, but having their own bedroom and bathroom. Under the current one-plus-one plan, two airmen share a kitchenette and bathroom, but have their own bedroom.

The new plan is a direct result of a recent policy change by the secretary of defense that increases the allowable space for dorm rooms to 17 square meters, said Col. James Holland, Air Force housing division chief. He added that the new dimensions, which constitute an increase in size of nearly 50 percent from the 11 square meters authorized under the one-plus-one plan, were authorized with certain stipulations on cost and overall building size.

"The secretary of defense authorized us to increase the size of private living space in the dormitory and provide private bathrooms, as long as we do it for the same cost of the existing dormitories," he said.

The new plan sends a clear message of support to enlisted men and women worldwide, said Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force Gerald R. Murray.

"The four-plus-one is a great initiative that improves on the one-plus-one design," said the chief. "It will give our airmen more space and a better layout."






Having nothing to do with the current changes discussed the Pentagon has two considerations 1) retaining re enlistments
2) filling their dormitories. Serviceman are not required to live on base and if they move off base get a stipend to pay for the rent. As a result there are some bases where on base houseing is going unoccupied forcing the military to pay needlessly for some of those living off base.

[treestar]

83. That's what they should have anyway

Which eliminates this talking point from nutty right wingers.

[Catherina]

64. A sad day for our country n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

75. Oh for fuck's sake

[Bluebear]

78. Indeedy.

[myrna minx]

76. OMG. K&R n.t

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. A President desegreated the Troops back in the day

and now we are going back to the future because some folks are insecure in their sexuality?

Time for the US to grow up... sexually that is.

There are days I wonder if we have mored on from the 18th century... serious.

In the meantime a few NATO military forces must be having a few chuckles, chortles and laughs at us. And with good reason to be brutally honest.

Then again in the US a "wardrobe malfuntion" leads to... pixelated images of a human breast... OH THE HORROR... while in Europe seeing people taking a pee or a crap on the TEEVEE machine is well done... we really have to get over our hang ups!

[QC]

84. Please, let's not be hysterical. It's "sensible separation," not "segregation,"

which is just a PC scare word dreamed up by those who never really loved the president to begin with.

[Bluebear]

86. Pragmatic Supermodest Privacy

:crazy:

[Touchdown]

85. And Morrell is still employed.

:eyes: