Proving Your Gay To The Turkish Army

[theblether]

I picked up the following article on the BBC website. I don't think I've read an article which has thrown up so many issues for a long time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17474967

As I say there are several issues at hand in that article, some I have no doubt are very familiar to people in the gay community. I was particularly disgusted with the requirement that the young man had to show a photo of himself in the passive position, to me that is a form of barbaric mental cruelty. There were several other issues which may well develop as the topic goes on however I was quite delighted to see that they now have a Gay Pride march in Istanbul.

The American members of this forum in particular may not be aware that Turkey has long held ambitions to join the European Union, the reason most often given to refuse entry is their poor human rights record. The EU Human Rights Act forbids homophobia, and I believe if Turkey is ever granted entry to the EU ( and I hope they will be some day ) they will be obliged to sign up for that act.

Turkey is at the crossroads from Europe to the Muslim Middle East. I believe it's in the best interests of everyone that they are encouraged along a European libertarian model. The more countries on the side of libertarian values the better in my opinion.

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

On a separate issue, I have read other threads in this forum I note that people stating that they are not gay raises ire sometimes. I am not gay however I don't think that should preclude myself from being interested in issues that affect the gay community. I have gay family members and I am interested in any issue that affects them. To me any positive contribution to the forum should be welcomed.

[Jingthing]

Interesting story from Turkey. So tops are out of luck.

I am certain of course many Turkish gays want to serve like everyone else. This is a complex issue. Personally, I don't like to see gays excluded this way but if the Turks are going to do that, yes their requirements are bizarre. The plus side is that there is no witch hunt. If you are gay and want to serve, you say nothing. They aren't into outing you maliciously.

BTW, you COMPLETELY misread the issue of people stating they are not gay. It has NOTHING to do with not welcoming non-gay people. Sorry you didn't get what the issue was about. Maybe you should find the thread that mentioned that and READ it.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jingthing

[theblether]

Interesting story from Turkey. So tops are out of luck.

I am certain of course many Turkish gays want to serve like everyone else. This is a complex issue. Personally, I don't like to see gays excluded this way but if the Turks are going to do that, yes their requirements are bizarre. The plus side is that there is no witch hunt. If you are gay and want to serve, you say nothing. They aren't into outing you maliciously.

BTW, you COMPLETELY misread the issue of people stating they are not gay. It has NOTHING to do with not welcoming non-gay people. Sorry you didn't get what the issue was about. Maybe you should find the thread that mentioned that and READ it.

Ok...I did read it but I read it differently from you, i read that it grates you when people say they are not gay on this forum. So let's just move on from that.

I think it's barbaric the way they demand proof in that fashion

[Jingthing]

Barbaric may be a bit strong. It is extreme and psychologically abusive. But like I said, why are gays excluded? Are they diseased or handicapped? Are they not Turks?

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jingthing

[justcruisin]

So that article, even not particularly relevant to Thailand, raises another question, how do the multitudes of gay guys here in this great country get out of conscription?

[theblether]

Barbaric may be a bit strong. It is extreme and psychologically abusive. But like I said, why are gays excluded? Are they diseased or handicapped? Are they not Turks?

well I agree with you, I worked with the US military, I think it was just before Clinton brought in the don't ask don't tell policy. I thought it was ridiculous that gay people couldn't serve. I understood the don't ask policy was as good as Clinton could do at the time but I'm pleased to see even that has moved on. Well done.

[Jingthing]

So that article, even not particularly relevant to Thailand, raises another question, how do the multitudes of gay guys here in this great country get out of conscription?

Topics on they gay forum do not need to have anything at all to do with Thailand. Now you know. Many gay Thai men do serve in the Thai military. The bigger issue is with ladyboy types. Its an evolving issue here. Also sexual categorization isn't nearly as rigid in Thailand as in Turkey. In other words many young men who have sex with men, active and passive, don't really identify as gay, and the military doesn't care to label them that way either. Turkey is also one of those more "macho" cultures where men who act the active partners in gay sex aren't considered gay, similar to Latin American cultures. Edited March 27, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

Justcruisin, welcome to the Gay Subforum- you may wish to read the local subforum guidelines before posting.

[Ijustwannateach]

Back on topic, I know a young gay man who recently entered the army in Thailand- as JT says, he's just not a ladyboy.

[theblether]

The good news for me was that there was a Gay Pride parade in Istanbul and that it is getting bigger every year.....I think that is great

[endure]

Welcome blether. We could do with a bit more blethering in here.

The general view of gays in Turkey is that if you're gay you must be passive. If you're active you're a 'man' and thus not really gay.

Asa far as the Thai military is concerned , as has been said, they don't really care as long as you wear men's clothes.

[David48]

Back on topic, I know a young gay man who recently entered the army in Thailand- as JT says, he's just not a ladyboy.

My gf's cousin, who is gay is soon to leave for the conscription lottery.

Can he use his sexuality as a reason for not to be included in the lottery?

[theblether]

Welcome blether. We could do with a bit more blethering in here.

The general view of gays in Turkey is that if you're gay you must be passive. If you're active you're a 'man' and thus not really gay.

Asa far as the Thai military is concerned , as has been said, they don't really care as long as you wear men's clothes.

That's a progressive attitude by the Thai army, it would be good to see some improvement in the Turkish army. I'm intrigued by the concept of Turkey having a progressive attitude as they sit on the fault line between Europe and the Middle East. That's why I am hoping Europe can reconcile Turkey into the EU and tie it more firmly to libertarian values.

[tombkk]

Back on topic, I know a young gay man who recently entered the army in Thailand- as JT says, he's just not a ladyboy.

My gf's cousin, who is gay is soon to leave for the conscription lottery.

Can he use his sexuality as a reason for not to be included in the lottery?

Not any more. The Thai Armed Forces used to consider homosexuality as a mental illness, but I understand this is not so any more. It caused the same problems with later employers as mentioned in the article about Turkey, and gays fought against this discrimination.

Being gay or not has nothing to do with being a soldier, IMHO.

[endure]

Back on topic, I know a young gay man who recently entered the army in Thailand- as JT says, he's just not a ladyboy.

My gf's cousin, who is gay is soon to leave for the conscription lottery.

Can he use his sexuality as a reason for not to be included in the lottery?

Not any more. The Thai Armed Forces used to consider homosexuality as a mental illness,

I think you'll find that they consider(ed) being a katoey as a mental illness. There are plenty of Thai chatrooms dedicated to gay Thai military folks which seem to exist without any problems.

[endure]

Back on topic, I know a young gay man who recently entered the army in Thailand- as JT says, he's just not a ladyboy.

My gf's cousin, who is gay is soon to leave for the conscription lottery.

Can he use his sexuality as a reason for not to be included in the lottery?

As long as he's willing to grow a pair of tits and have his nuts chopped off he'll be fine.

[David48]

thanks tombkk and endure ... I'm sure he doesn't want to go and wasn't sure what the rules were.

Plus I want to be informed before I open my trap in Thailand and sprout (well meaning) advice.

[theblether]

Back on topic, I know a young gay man who recently entered the army in Thailand- as JT says, he's just not a ladyboy.

My gf's cousin, who is gay is soon to leave for the conscription lottery.

Can he use his sexuality as a reason for not to be included in the lottery?

Not any more. The Thai Armed Forces used to consider homosexuality as a mental illness, but I understand this is not so any more. It caused the same problems with later employers as mentioned in the article about Turkey, and gays fought against this discrimination.

Being gay or not has nothing to do with being a soldier, IMHO.

When I was in the territorial army ( same as the US national guard ) I was on exercise in Germany. We were practising getting into Europe quickly in the event of a Russian invasion.

When I was there it was to protect everybody, of every background in free Europe, and of course the UK. Naturally my family was at the front of my mind. I have no doubt that gay men have exactly the same thoughts about protecting their family.

It has nothing to do with being a soldier.

[LeCharivari]

Blether, thanks for posting that and you’re quite right – it does raise lot of issues. What interests me, as someone who is gay and spent quite some time in the Army at a time when being gay was grounds for a Court Martial rather just an administrative discharge, is just what you (or anyone else, of course) think qualifies as an “improvement”, and who it would be a “improvement” for.

I have always believed that professional/volunteer armies are far preferable to conscript armies and that, if conscription is necessary and unavoidable, then those who do not want to serve in the military should be able to serve their country in other ways, but that’s not currently an option in Turkey (or in plenty of other countries), although they did consider it and are debating other options at the moment.

The Turkish army allows no exemptions to conscription for conscientious objectors, which is a far greater violation of human rights than not accepting gays, and a far greater violation of the ECHR.

The only ways of avoiding military service in Turkey for able-bodied men are either being openly “gay”, much as being kathoey/transvestite (not just “gay”, as endure rightly pointed out) is a way of avoiding conscription in Thailand, or by living and working outside Turkey for at least three years and paying a fee (currently €10,000). The Turkish requirement for gays to “prove” their sexual preference to avoid military service may not seem pleasant, and neither may some of the semi-public communal physical inspections in Thailand, but if it were made too “easy” then it would probably be a far more popular option (its certainly cheaper than €10,000!), and one which many more may try to avail themselves of making a nonsense of the whole purpose and system of conscription.

On the other hand, the Turkish army has a well deserved reputation for harsh and often brutal discipline and anyone who is openly gay would be a prime target for discrimination and being singled out in what is an imposed “macho” environment. The Turkish Army, apparently, recognizes this and gives gays an “out” if they want it, even if it is not an easy one – taking that away for any reason would hardly be an “improvement” for the Army or for gays.

I have also always believed that conscripting, allowing, or encouraging anyone to serve in the military should be based on one thing and one thing only, and that applies to men, women, gays, lesbians, ethnic and religious minorities, and anyone else: is their service likely to make the military any better at its job? The question of whether anyone has a right to serve should be immaterial.

Edited April 6, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Ijustwannateach]

I'd also like to point out that a very self-respecting young man I know struggled hard at 2 jobs for several months to raise his own money to stay out of the Thai army. Especially important at the moment given the virtual civil war going on down there.

[LeCharivari]

Thailand is one of those countries I referred to which also does not exempt conscientious objectors from military service (unless they are and remain full-time ordained Buddhist monks) and has no alternative to military service for those conscripted.

Like Turkey, it also has a reputation for sometimes harsh and brutal treatment of conscripts (and particularly deserters) by officers and NCOs, and for failing to take action against those who abuse their authority.

Another case of an army being a reflection of society, I suppose ....

[JemJem]

Dear Blether, poor human rights record is not the no 1 problem regarding Turkey's entry into EU. The Cyprus issue is the no 1 problem. The current Turkish government, which sometimes claims to be anti-nationalist, is actually also a nationalist one like the previous ones; and it is still not willing to open Turkey's ports to Cypriot vessels which is an EU requirement. Also, let's not forget that there is still a Turkish military presence in the northern part of the divided island.

As for the gay-rights issue, this kind of 'photo-proof asking' is very shameful. I think one good thing about gay rights in Turkey is that there have been Gay Pride walks in Istanbul in the past few years and there have been no incidents caused by bigots. Let's not forget that in some Eastern European countries (some of which are EU members), Gay Pride walks (even some recent ones) have been marred by incidents caused by fascists and other bigots.

Jem

[Ijustwannateach]

I was hoping you'd post here eventually, Jem!

[JemJem]

I was hoping you'd post here eventually, Jem!

Cheers; I had just wanted to make people miss me.

Haha; just kidding But, I shall try to post on the boards more often from now on.

Jem

Edited April 7, 2012 by JemJem

[LeCharivari]

As for the gay-rights issue, this kind of 'photo-proof asking' is very shameful.

"Shameful" it may be, Jem, but other than ending conscription or forcing gays to serve in the army can you suggest a better alternative?

In Thailand, as endure pointed out, a gay needs "to grow a pair of tits and have his nuts chopped off" to avoid conscription. Given the choice of that or dressing up in women's clothes for an hour or presenting a photo of my backside (not a pretty sight) I think I'd prefer the Turkish option.

[JemJem]

As for the gay-rights issue, this kind of 'photo-proof asking' is very shameful.

"Shameful" it may be, Jem, but other than ending conscription or forcing gays to serve in the army can you suggest a better alternative?

In Thailand, as endure pointed out, a gay needs "to grow a pair of tits and have his nuts chopped off" to avoid conscription. Given the choice of that or dressing up in women's clothes for an hour or presenting a photo of my backside (not a pretty sight) I think I'd prefer the Turkish option.

If conscription is not ended (sadly, it seems that in Turkey, at least in the near future, conscription won't be ended), then, at least, people should be given the right of 'conscientious objection' (eg. due to sociological, political, religious and/or philosophical reasons). I think that a lot of countries where there is conscription recognise this right.....and as far as I know, this right is protected by certain worldwide courts.

Jem

[LeCharivari]

Sorry, Jem, but although conscientious objection is "promoted" by the UN and the EU it isn't a right and out of around a hundred countries with conscription only thirty recognise conscientious objection and some of those assign objectors non-combatant roles in the military. Those with conscription that don't recognise conscientious objection include Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Israel (except for women), Russia, Thailand and Turkey.

The problem with relying on a conscript army and allowing conscientious objection is that increasingly few take the military option: even in Germany (who had conscription until last year) where conscription was only for 6 months and conscripts could not be deployed on active duty (eg ISAF or KFOR) unless they volunteered, over half of those who were of draft age since 2000 applied to be excused military service as conscientious objectors.

43 countries specifically allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military while gays and lesbians are not allowed to serve in 55 countries - and Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Singapore, Syria,Turkey and Venezuela are, as far as I know, the only ones with conscription but where gays are not allowed to serve in the military (although I doubt if many in Iran choose to use it to gain exemption).

[Expatwannabee]

Firstly, in case anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am homophobic, I am gay, in a long term relationship and open about it. However, I can see why this demeaning set of circumstances may have come about. It could be that a large number of young straight men want to dodge their military service. One way of doing this, if it was readily accepted, would be to claim they were gay. The conditions laid down would make that impossible for all but the most desperate of straight guys. The insistence that the photo shows them in the passive role is also logical because many guys would have no qualms about demonstrating the other role as in many Muslim countries only the passive role is stigmatised. Also it appears that it is not a witch hunt on gays. If you are happy to serve you can (albeit closeted.).

[LeCharivari]

Firstly, in case anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am homophobic, I am gay, in a long term relationship and open about it. However, I can see why this demeaning set of circumstances may have come about. It could be that a large number of young straight men want to dodge their military service. One way of doing this, if it was readily accepted, would be to claim they were gay. The conditions laid down would make that impossible for all but the most desperate of straight guys. The insistence that the photo shows them in the passive role is also logical because many guys would have no qualms about demonstrating the other role as in many Muslim countries only the passive role is stigmatised. Also it appears that it is not a witch hunt on gays. If you are happy to serve you can (albeit closeted.).

A very valid point, which I have made before in this thread Ewb. In Turkey it is so much an accepted part of "manhood" that those who do not complete their conscription are often ostracised as it covers such a broad age band (20 - 41) that it is very difficult for anyone to have what is accepted as a "valid" excuse not to carry out what is generally considered their duty.

... people should be given the right of 'conscientious objection' (eg. due to sociological, political, religious and/or philosophical reasons)

Sorry again, Jem, as I should have pointed this out before but I only just noticed it, but conscientious objection is only acceptable anywhere on the grounds of conscience or religion - it is not acceptable on sociological or political grounds.

This may seem a minor point, but it has actually had quite an effect on those who objected, for example, to serving in either Iraq or Afghanistan and on the "refuseniks" in the Israeli Defence Force. What is known as "selective" conscientious objection or "discretionary armed service" (which is often sociologically or politically motivated) is not accepted as a valid argument for exemption although in practice it is sometimes applied. Some who objected to serving in Iraq, for example, have been charged (in both the British and American Armed Forces), while others have not. Generally speaking, those who objected only once they were posted were charged while those who objected to serving in Iraq before they were posted but who volunteered instead to serve extensively in Afghanistan (where casualties are far higher) were not.