Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Study shows DADT hurts military readiness

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:21 PM
Original message
Study shows DADT hurts military readiness
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/11/12007

I have an article in The Advocate about a major university study that shows concealing ones sexual orientation affects mental and physical performance:

Gay and lesbian study participants who were asked to conceal their sexual orientation performed 20% worse on spatial reasoning tests and 50% worse on physical endurance tests as compared to those who were not given this instruction. The findings have clear implications for the battlefield. Gays and lesbians even those who follow the policy are prevented from performing optimally, which may affect the readiness of military units.


What is interesting about this study is that the participants dont have to feel distressed about concealing their sexual orientation and it doesnt matter how much practice they have. Of course many of us assumed that Dont Ask, Dont Tell affected gays performance, but its good to have some scientific confirmation that can be used to argue for a policy change.


Cant wait to see this study... the walls of bigotry are starting to fall down - the question is will our leaders walk through the ruble or turn their backs once again....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. No shit.
People laugh about stress affecting a person's performance, but it's an enormous drain on somebody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeremyfive Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Military Sweeties Cannot Tolerate Hearing About Gay Partners
The sensibilities of the United States Military are just so extremely delicate that if they even hear about a same sex partner or relationship from a buddy, they just go to pieces and lose all "military cohesion".

Why, these "hetero sissies" are so delicate that it is truly amazing! Such refined and delicate sensitivities! "DADT" keeps these dainty and sensitive heteros from hearing any such truths from their comrades. Why, they might just stomp their feet and hold their breath till they turned blue if they even heard about somebody's gay partner! Such sweet, delicate, sensitive souls.

Looks like the army is still "looking for a few good men"--the delicate sweethearts that we have now cannot maintain "unit cohesion" if they hear the truth about their comrades' relationships. Dainty, ain't they?

And this is our country's front line of defense? Very scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. it's a weak basis for the argument though
I think young 'uns may have the idea of stigma or some inverse property of groupthink right now - but that's more to do with being young and insecure than with being gay. A real performer doesn't allow anything to intrude on a physical or intellectual test, especially not having to keep some dark secret.

A more significant test would be if heterosexuals experience the same performance deficits when being forced to hide their sexual orientation in a similar situation. If that's true then this study is favorable. If it's not true, then it makes the case that behavioral issues will impact our intellectual and physical performance more readily.

Either way this is not a good line of reasoning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I dont think it would be possible to do such a control group
No soldier comes into the military without a history. If you take heterosexuals and put the same restraints on them to see if they experience the same performance deficits it wont likely give the same same results because people who are heterosexual don't have the history of prejudges from growing up.

While I like the idea that of "A real performer doesn't allow anything to intrude on a physical or intellectual test, especially not having to keep some dark secret." I do not think its universally true or something admirable and in many cases Id say demanding such an attitude would be harmful IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. the fact is the people they're testing are young
and still give a damn what other people think. It's the "giving a damn part" that makes us look weak, and without a control group this is an even weaker basis for us to stand on.

The fact is if you're American, you should be able to serve in the military. If you're American, you should be able to get married, vote, own property and assets and decide your own medical affairs.

We need to charge this hill from that position. Prove that I'm gay. What the fuck does gay have to do with anything. Prove that I'm not gay. Same deal - this is all about admission or accusation, and nothing to do with anything you can put on a driver's license.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. How do you know the age of the study participants? I cant find the range listed? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. do you suppose they're testing people past recruiting age?
yes, it's an assumption but I doubt there are lots of grandmas or evil old people like me in the study.

If they aren't testing people who are of recruiting age (read: too poor to go to college can't get a job out of high school), then the study is absolutely flawed.

Either way, the study may be valid, but it's a lousy basis for the argument of turning over DADT. We can do much better. I'd point to unblemished records of battle veterans instead of our pitiful fainting violet I'm so nervous about being found out side effects. :evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. They can't be testing trained military personnel because they can't "tell."
So, who are the test subjects? Lot's of questions about how they might extrapolate this to trained service members and combat veterans on AD who have proven their capability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. sui g has a good point. We don't need any more "queer science." DADT is bad for the nation.
This casts a bad light on the 65,000 gays now serving on AD.

It gives bigots even more fuel to drum out gays as weak, rather than, ever showing empathy for the victims of bigotry, nor, will certain factions ever see this as a reason to ease up their support for DADT.

DADT is bad ofr national security. Period. It harms the military because it actually disrupts unit cohesion.

I learned last week, in a similar debate ( the one about the MRI's and PET scans of the brains of gay men) , where I was on the "side of science," that science and research can be tainted, biased and misused.

readmoreoften exposed the seamy underbelly of the misuse of science in 2008 in this post.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard...
.........

The original article is not even in print for us to read, as it is unpublished, according to BoxTurtle. I can't ascertain who wrote it, funded it, or their POV.

BTW - the foremost argument is that DADT is bad for the nation, security and military readiness and for gays.


We don't need anymore studies, we don't need control groups, DADT is bad for the nation.
The book: Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.

That book was written by an expert at the Palm Center.

In 1993, a Rand Report came out with a large study that showed absolutely no reason not to let gay men and women serve openly. That study was ignored and DADT passed and became law.

.......

http://www.newsweek.com/id/192456
The End Of An Error
There's no need to waste time with further study. The policy on gays in the military must be overturned now.

The most unlikely blurb of this publishing season is on the back cover of Nathaniel Frank's "Unfriendly Fire" and comes from John Shalikashvili. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff lauds a book that systematically trashes a policy the general once oversaw: the ban on openly gay men and lesbians in the military known as "don't ask, don't tell."

When it became law in 1993, the policy was sold as an attempt to allow gays to serve if they did not discuss their orientation or participate in homosexual actsthat is, if they lived a life of pretense and self-denial not required of straight counterparts. Shame and second-class status were therefore built into the deal, and unsurprisingly led to a reality in which exemplary soldiers were harassed, investigated and expelled based on "evidence" as negligible as friendly banter or thoughtless gossip.

The rationale behind keeping gays out of the military has always been a moving target, since there is not a scintilla of data or evidence to support it. First there were claims of security risks, then the spread of disease. Eventually there was something called unit cohesion, an argument that soldiers did not want to serve with gay service members and therefore would not perform properly if forced to do so.


<snip>

The absurdity of this is so overwhelming that even many of those who once supported the policy have turned against it. Former Republican senator Alan Simpson wrote, "We need every ablebodied smart patriot to help us win this war," and retired General Shalikashvili called for the end of "don't ask, don't tell," saying it was important to "consider the evidence that has emerged" against a ban on gay service members. But overwhelming evidence has existed for decades that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly has no effect on military mission or efficiency. Time after time, respected think tanks and governmental departments have been asked to study the issue, and time after time the result has been buried by military leaders who preferred mythology to data.

Some members of Congress have recently suggested an "in-depth study" of this issue. All they need do is read Frank's book to see that it has been studied to death. The existing policy is a blot on the reputation of the U.S. armed forces, since it suggests that while the Australians, the Canadians, the Israelis, the British and service members from 20 other countries that have jettisoned gay bans can overcome individual differences, Americans cannot.

<snip>

But if the president places the notion of America as a place of fairness and freedom above all, he will immediately issue an executive order suspending this irrational and prejudiced policy. Its only use is to diminish our fighting force, our national security and our moral standing in the world.



............

Look into the field of "queer science" a little further.

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/BaileyAssocia...

PART-II:

Investigative files on key HBDG (aka HBI, HBES) members associated with Bailey as role models, mentors, colleagues, supporters and spokesmen

This is the group of racists, anti-immigrationists and genetic superiorists whose activities were exposed by the prestigious Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), in the Winter 2003 SPLC investigative report entitled:

QUEER SCIENCE: An 'elite' cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race.

quack-hattery:


http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/BaileyAssocia...










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I agree to a point - I need to see the study first as well
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 03:00 PM by FreeState
It gives bigots even more fuel to drum out gays as weak, rather than, ever showing empathy for the victims of bigotry, nor, will certain factions ever see this as a reason to ease up their support for DADT.


I think the study shows that DADT weakens GLBT service members - not that they are weak. It all depends on the merits of the study and how its presented IMO. Granted bigots like to twist things too.

Like you I agree we dont need a study to show DADT is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. FS-
This is saying something very damning to active duty gay men and women serving, in forced secrecy, today.

"It's about their actual competence."

Wow.

Ammo to distrust our AD gay men and women, to spread division when matters of life and death are at stake and to maybe, an argument to get them out even sooner?

>>Critcher and Ferguson stressed that this effect is not about "mental anguish" caused by concealing one's sexual orientation. Even participants who reported they were not fatigued or upset by the conversation still demonstrated the effect.

"It's nothing about participants reporting distress," Ferguson said. "It's about their actual competence."<<

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I see that - but what Im trying to say is that "actual competence" is effected by many things
Edited on Thu Jun-11-09 03:56 PM by FreeState
I dont think its saying AD "actual competence" is less because they are gay but rather because of the environment they are placed in under DADT. Does that make sense?

(I agree with you 100% that it looks like this could be used against GLBT AD - I need to see the study first though to see what exactly it tested and how...)

Either way the study is done and it will be released so we need to understand it so we can frame the results in a way that supports AD GLBT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. We could
just change the subject, put a happy face on it and cheerfuly remind people that:

"President Obama proclaimed June to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month."

:evilgrin:



Yeah, I agree, let's see what the study says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. LOL - thanks for the laugh:) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-11-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. DADT is bad for gays and str8's, bad for unit cohesion and for national security.
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' not good for security
Why Obama should fix this now
Source: The Philadelphia Daily News
Author(s): Opinion Editors
Date: June 10, 2009


The study's authors believe that when gay and lesbian soldiers serve openly for a period, it will bolster the case that equal treatment not only doesn't detract from "unit cohesion," but adds to it. That will provide more impetus for full repeal of the policy in Congress.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is not only a gay issue, it's a national-security issue. In a time when the armed forces struggle to meet recruitment goals, kicking out 13,000 experienced troops reduces military readiness and makes us all less safe.

It's wrong, and it's dishonorable. As Lt. Choi points out, it forces soldiers to deceive and lie and others to tolerate deception and lying. And that "poisons a unit and cripples a fighting force."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC