Talk:LGBT people and military service

message: Currently, there is no limitation whatsoever about who can serve in the military. Since 2009, even transsexual people (with and without surgery) can serve too. An article about the topic http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/454912/0/transexuales/ejercito/ley/ EonesDespero (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain

message: *I rearranged this section and put the quote in a quotebox. Previously, it had a tendentious tone and didn't have a clear distinction between quotes and facts. Furthermore, it didn't properly credit the source of its quote. This is all fixed.bwmcmaste (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada

message: The title of this page is kind of clunky. -Branddobbe 07:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: If they decide to refuse to grant the stay, then DADT can no longer be enforced for the time being (again), and not only should the article be changed to reflect this, but the U.S. should be turned BLUE on the map. It was not turned blue during the last window when openly gay soldiers could serve openly. 216.165.11.77 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 9th Circuit to rule on DADT stay tomorrow

message: How do the Italian, Litzburgish etc armies find out of someone is gay?
:Er why would they want to find out if someone is gay. Since both the Italian and Luxembourg (I guess that's what you meant) armies allow homosexuals to openly server, I don't think there is any reason why they would want or care about whether or not people are homosexual or heterosexual. Incidentally, the Italian army apparently allows female to serve so it isn't just gay men but lesbian women Nil Einne 12:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentary you refer to is "The Making of Me" featuring John Barrowman, though I think that it's hardly common for that technique to be used as a screener or some such to identify homosexuals. More likely, in countries that care investigations are based on personal admission, incidences of conduct, etc. (as in America). CrashCart9 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The turkish military, for example, bans gays from serving. Often, however, a man's admission to being gay is not enough; instead he would be forced to provide photographic proof. Interestingly, the military considers only the passive sex partner to be homosexual.--DVD-junkie | talk | 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have to realize that Turkey has universal military service for all young men. So pretending to be gay would be a way of getting out of military service. Weatherford (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do they check 

message: :Anybody want to, uh, attach sources to all of this? --Penta 22:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have to realize that Turkey has universal military service for all young men. So pretending to be gay would be a way of getting out of military service. Weatherford (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: That's the longest subject I have ever written! But I think that this article would be even better if there were sources for each country's policy, and better yet if there were also links to personal stories/anecdotes about LGBTs who have served or are serving now. I realize that personal stories and anecdotes are stretching the purview of an encyclopedia; however if you think about it, such stories are indeed relevant to the topic. Perhaps in order to avoid too much NPOV controversy such stories and anecdotes could be listed in a section like "External Links"?
And on a related tangential note: Many of us LGBTs use things like Wikipedia in order to find out about other LGBTs in the world, to break through our isolation and to find out what is happening with people like us in other countries and in our own countries. I know that sexual orientation is a divisive topic, and in fact there have been talk page edit wars between people seeking to remove references to homosexuality from an article and people wishing to keep such references in (I am thinking about the Vladimir Horowitz article, for example). Maybe some wise admin could start a discussion somewhere about this (sorry if they already have and I didn't know)... I don't want to be divisive, but at the same time I don't want to submit to what seems to me to be unfair and NPOV bias against LGBTs. Dveej 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to sources of info about LGBTs serving in the military of each country 

message: Almost all of the United States' history section is a straight copy and paste from the "Don't ask, don'ttell article. Freddie42 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also far, far too long. Imagine an equivalent of that for Britain, France, Russia...! If a piece of that length really is justified apart from the Don't ask, don't tell article then it should be broken out from this article and moved to something like Sexual orientation in the United States military. Loganberry (Talk) 03:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest removing the US section and replacing it with a section of recent changes in policys and on-going debates which can then link to other countires more detailed histories.Matchrthom 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and removed the section. As people have said, it's a duplication from the Don't ask don't tell article which has been here since April 2006 but is clearly unnecessary in this article. There might be some merit for a tiny section on the current changes & debates but no more then one paragraph Nil Einne 12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: "The Military's Ban Against Homosexuals Should Remain"
The aforementioned link leads to a personal web blog authored by a college student. While a dissenting view point would be a positive contribution to the 
article, I think a more scholarly source is needed. Um'kay?
This map is very inaccurate, all the courtiers in Africa are marked in blue, when actual almost all the countries in Africa it is a criminal offence to be a homosexual me and half of those women too. They should be inked in red as they may not specifically ban homosexuals, this is because it is already illegal and anyone found out to be gay faces death, tortured and almost certainly goal. Any homosexual; soldier is going to be sacked anyway due to the fact they will go to prison anyway, no need to bar them when it’s already illegal. They should be in the red. Greece is another one that should be in red, and Japan should be in Blue because almost certainly a country as liberal as them would not have such legislation in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilian knowledge (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Link 

message: One thing I noticed to be missing from this article is how the militaries, that discriminate against non-hetrosexual personel, attempt to rationalise thier descions. I know that some nations may hold a large religeous, or otherwise prejudiced, population that would object towards any sort equality, however I do wonder if any nations attempt to give any other reasons. Perhaps as a political screen in an attempt to disguise thier predjudices from more open minded countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaeme (talk • contribs) 15:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Justification" given? 

message: The Philippines and Argentine governments have officially ended their bans on gays in the military.
http://www.365gay.com/news/philippines-ends-ban-on-gays-in-military/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgigs12 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, quit talking out of your ass. Brazilian population is more accepting of homosexuality than many Westerners, including Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.48.50 (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippines and Argentina 

message: Japan has the 7th largest defense budget in the world. It seems strange that Japan is not mentioned at all in this article. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan? 

message: The section on Denmark is probably completely made up. There is not and has never been a Danish general by the name of Kristian Andersen . The draft hasn't been complete in many, many years - if ever service has been mandatory, it's not been in recent centuries. Even in my year (long before the end of The Cold War) only 1 in 6 got drafted. "Stephen Arynczuk" is not even remotely a Danish name (the first name would be spelled "Steffen") and a Google search reveals the name only in connection with the quote given here - even when searching only for the last name - making it highly unlikely that the person exists. Openly gay officers and servicemen is something that has passed me by completely and I know a fair number of servicemen, all of whom openly disparage homosexuals. This country is not quite as beautiful as the dreams some have about us... ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.91.114.210 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark? 

message: :Why did User:Srich32977 add the following:
Foreign governments that permit homosexuals to serve openly in their military service include Taiwan, Australia, Israel, Argentina and all countries of the European Union with the exception of Greece, and every original NATO signatory except the United States.Singer, Peter. "What Our Military Allies Can Tell Us About The End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell", The Brookings Institution, 7 June 2010.
:When the reference he used states:
Britain isn’t the only U.S. ally to allow open gays in the military. More than 25 of our allies, including every original NATO signatory other than the U.S. and Turkey, have transitioned to an open military.
:Why replace Turkey with Greece?
:Also the Greek law of 2002 (http://www.omhroi.gr/images/sections/SI.pdf) did not bar homosexuals from the army. It merely gave a way out for people who claimed they had or would have deep psychological issues from having to be drafted. In the last decade that has seen the rise of professional soldiers (EPOP) in Greece there has been no single incident of a homosexual being fired for being homosexual. Because there is no law to support it. The newer law of 2005 (http://www.dsanet.gr/Epikairothta/Nomothesia/n3421_05.htm) has even changed the mildly offensive wording and now only mentions proof of psychological problems from mental health institutions. I am going to add Greece to the countries that accept gays and remove the false map until someone can fix it. Simanos (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greece has no ban 

message: Transsexualism is not a sexual orientation. Either the article needs to be retitled or the content needs to be adjusted accordingly. —Designate (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should be retitled. There is valuable information on transgender people serving in militaries that does not have an appropriate article anywhere else. While many debate the appropriateness of including gender identity in discussions on sexual orientation, the ubiquity with which they are used together merits the inclusion of transgenderism in this article. Hennings.iheid (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "LGBT" 

message: The article has been updated to reflect that for the time being, the United States may not enforce "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by order of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and thus allow openly gay people in the military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.134.228 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Army Times considers it permanently suspended, it looks like, although there's still some caveat until the repeal is official. Designate (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States may no longer enforce DADT 

message: Why's there no information on LGBT in the armed forces of Hungary? --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungary 

message: There's no real discussion of the topic itself in this entire article; it's just a country-by-country listing of policies, with some discussion of those policies for countries that have had notable histories with regard to this issue. I would expect this article to contain some actual substantive, encyclopedic discussion of the issue itself (e.g., basis for excluding or not excluding people from service, underlying philosophical ideas, history of the topic generally, and so forth). A very small amount of general information can be inferred from the individual sub-sections, but, of course, it's mostly applicable only to one particular country. (Before anyone says, "Be bold! Go ahead and add information and improve the article," let me say that I have little to no expertise on this subject or resources at hand. I'm appealing to what I would think would be a large group of people who have interest in AND expertise about this topic.) Holy (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of recent changes? They were made as part of a class project, meant to address exactly your concerns. Hennings.iheid (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contents: lacking general information 

message: I've restored the poll result with only the information I was able to find about it - the number, when it came out - but if we have a source for its being organized by Stonewall (and it doesn't subsequently turn out that it was badly conducted or anything) then we can add that too. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK opinion poll 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Sexual orientation and military service's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "bbc":
From South Africa: 
From Pink money: 
From Australia: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Sexual orientation and military service]] 

message: Um, it's not ambiguous. The policy is clear, although the methods of enforcement may seem weird. 198.151.130.67 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: 2 of the 3 categories are in paragraph form, while 1 is in list form. Not proper weight. Please fix.198.151.130.67 (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: As part of this course, I am proposing to add the following section, which you can also find in my sandbox.Hennings.iheid (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional section: Transgender military service 

message: As part of this course, I am proposing to add the following section, which you can also find in my sandbox.Hennings.iheid (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional section: Being LGBT in the military

message: I am a master student at the Graduate Institute and I'm editing Wikipedia with 4 other colleges as part of this assignment. We identified numerous changes that we could make to this article, and that we would like to discuss with other wikipedians.
1. Criticism of the article: 
We found a number of areas for critique and potential improvement within the existing article. Many of these would explain why this entry is listed as a “start” class article by Wikipedia. In the most formalistic sense, there are a number of sources missing, the map shown at the top of the page is out of date, some of the citations provided link to informal sources lacking authority and some of the entries are generally poorly written. Of the country entries, some are woefully incomplete and, as discussed on the talk page, some particularly striking country examples, such as Turkey, are missing altogether. More diligent editing, fact checking and source recovery is necessary to make this a more authoritative article. 
As it presently exists, the article is a very brief introduction followed by a list of individual country entries of varying depth and quality. We feel that there needs to be more context provided to the issue beyond the simple list that is provided. The existing introduction is very brief and what information is included appears to be randomly selected. The “article” references the number of UN Security Council member states that ban LGBT people serving openly in the military, in addition to those with the same policy among NATO countries, without explaining the relevance of this information. In our view, without greater context it simply serves to privilege US and European policy. Similarly, the article suggests that allowing LGBT persons to serve openly is a form of sexual harassment policy without adequately citing or fully explaining such an association. 
The language used in the article is problematic. The title of the article is “sexual orientation” whereas at different points it uses “homosexual,” “gay and lesbian,” “bisexual,” “non- heterosexual” and “gay people” seemingly indiscriminately. Most problematically of all is the consistent use of the term “gay people” throughout much of the article, even after beginning with such a variety of terms. We feel that there needs to be a conscious and consistent approach to the language taken to be as inclusive as possible of the vast array of non-heterosexual identities and activities that exist globally and does not contribute to the marginalization of women. 
On a related but more profound level, the article does not address the exclusion of transgender people. While the title of the article centers the discussion on “sexual orientation,” we feel that the exclusion of transgender people without an overt explanation is problematic. While we are sensitive to the fact that the experience of transgender people around the world is likely worthy of its own separate entry, we feel that there is sufficient reason to believe this article would be incomplete without some recognition and inclusion of transgender people. 
2. Our proposal: 
Considering that the current article is merely a list of countries with poorly researched explanations of policies concerning LGBT military personnel, we will split the discussion into two articles. The first will largely resemble the current article; it will be called “Sexual orientation and military service by country.” The second will be a revamped “Sexual orientation and military service” that will foster substantive, encyclopedic discussion on the issue itself. We will include the following sections that will constitute the new version of “Sexual orientation and military service.” 
1. Proper introduction: The current introduction is nonsensical in its choice of states to highlight. Moreover, our planned overhaul of the article will require a new introduction reflecting the new content.
2. Trans section: Given the title and topic of the article, i.e., sexual orientation, it will still be valuable to write about the phenomenon of trans people serving in the military. Trans individuals face distinct challenges and gender based violence that deserves mention. 
3. Arguments for excluding people (also Military arguments) This section will articulate arguments as to why LGBT people should be excluded from military service. Topics may include concerns for unit cohesion and military readiness. This paragraph will contribute to the balance and neutrality of the article. 
4. Arguments for including openly LGBT people (also Military arguments) Including openly LGBT people in military service may actually promote unit cohesion and readiness, contrary to other arguments. We will summarize such research here. 
5. Effects on serving openly or closeted on individuals: What does research suggest the effect of serving openly has on individuals versus serving closeted? This section will touch on the situation faced by LGBT persons, or those perceived to be so, in the military. 
6. Violence faced by LGBT people in the military: Physical, sexual, and psychological violence is a fact of life for many LGBT identified persons. In an inherently violent environment, LGBT people may face violence unique to their community in the course of military service. 
7. Discrimination faced by LGBT people in the military in militaries without explicit limitations: This section will explore the question of legality versus practice. In militaries where LGBT people are allowed to serve openly, are there continued practical limitations to their service? 
8. Meta list (simple lists organized by militaries that explicitly allow open LGBT people, explicitly ban LGBT people, or are ambiguous) This section will simplify the existing list of conditions by country. It will separate the militaries that explicitly allow LGBT personnel, militaries that explicitly bar LGBT people form serving, and militaries with ambiguous policies. There will be a “see also” link to the new “Sexual orientation and military service by country” page, and each state that has a specific page on its LGBT military personnel policy will also have a link to that page. 
9. History: This section will attempt to paint a broad picture of the history of sexual orientation as it relates to the military. It could include cursory examinations of ancient practices, as well as understandings of how the world’s militaries came to adopt policies regarding LGBT individuals. 
To improve the current “Sexual orientation and military service” article, we will change the name of the article to “Sexual orientation and military service by country.” We will add subsections to better organize the article. The new subsections will be titled: "List of armed forces allowing LGB personnel to serve openly;" "List of armed forces without restrictive LGB legislation;" and “List of armed forces of countries explicitly banning LGB personnel.” Significant work must be undertaken to improve the language as well. There are currently wild inconsistencies in terminology. Finally, references need serious work. We will add references where available, or the “reference needed” tag where appropriate. 
3. Suggestions for future expansions: 
Given the fairly limited nature of the article at present, we have identified a number of contributions and improvements that we feel would make for a more valuable and authoritative article. There are a number of future expansions that we suggest would be necessary to complete the article but that we do not anticipate being able to do within the scope of this project. We plan to suggest these improvements in the talk page to stimulate discussion and perhaps sew the seeds for future improvements. We feel that the page would be improved by providing a greater focus on the experience of women and transgendered men and women within each of the country entries. We do not propose to take on the labour-intensive task of updating the map but we strongly suggest that this work be done in the future. In addition, we do not intend to provide substantial reviews for each of the country areas or to create entries for all of the missing countries. However, this work is very important for a list such as the one in the existing page to be both comprehensive and authoritative.
As is evident from our proposal for the creation of a new entry on this topic, we see that there are a number of different subjects worthy of research and discussion that collectively provide context and an accurate framing of this issue. We are aware of the possibility that effectively addressing each of the headings we have highlighted above for the new article may prove to be beyond the scope of this project. Should that be the case, we will promote the remaining headings for further development in the talk page. Finally, on a topic such as this, there will, at least for the foreseeable future, be a need for constant revision and updating. Similarly, we believe that the task of providing intersectional critique and attention is also ongoing and is necessary for every part of the two articles. It is both beyond the scope of this project and our collective expertise as editors to attempt to undertake this comprehensively, and we would encourage all future participants and editors of the pages to take up this challenge. 
Vincentunpack (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submission for complete modification of the article 

message: As it stands, the introduction doesn't make justice to the actual content of the article. It has to summarize the content of the sections, not to bring a new point (linking religion, worldwide attitude and sexual orientation in the military. Can someone reformulate it?Vincentunpack (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The description of the top image states that, in countries color-coded as 03F (blue), Gay, bisexual and transgender men can serve in the military. This seems counter-intuitive, however. I would assume that, in countries where lesbian women are not allowed to serve in the military, trans men would find more legal difficulties serving than trans women. There is no source for the map, making me wonder if it is verifiable in the first place, but it also makes it difficult to ascertain whether this is a mistake.
The article doesn't go in much detail about binary transgenderism either. Formerly, the section on Brazil made a statement on "transgendered males (including travestis)", which was obviously inaccurate. Nowhere else is "trans man", "transgender man", "transgendered man", etc, or female equivalents mentioned. Does anyone know what's up?
My gut feeling says that, in many countries, transgender women would be allowed to serve, while transgender men are not. I'd like some input so we can set this issue straight :) ~Mable (chat) 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I both see your concern and fear that if we simply put "transgender women" in there, it may confuse in context. Assuming our reading of the facts is correct, could we say "gay and bisexual men and transgendered persons with male biology" or somesuch? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we wouldn't put "trans women" in there wikilinked. It would be "...men and transgendered persons assigned male at birth" in your example, by the way, which doesn't read too bad, I suppose. It would be more inclusive for non-binary people, at least, though I don't think that's the intent here ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 21:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that it should be something along the lines of "...cisgendered men and transgendered persons assigned male at birth" for that example, actually :D. Any thoughts? NeutralWikipedia (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Good call raising this issue. I suspect that we might not actually have the sourcing on many of these countries to make a call about their policies on trans people - some of them might not even have the language in their laws for it. (Which is why I wouldn't agree with obfuscatory changes aimed at non-binary inclusion. It's a map of policy, so if the policies don't discuss it, we're editorializing. Do they or do they not ban trans men and/or trans women from serving?) , can you help us out? Where does the info come from? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The information comes from intersecting the list where gay people can serve, trans people can serve, but women cannot. At least, that was when I was doing the map. Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What list, exactly? ~Mable (chat) 18:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "GBT men" 

message: This wiki article omits important information on how being gay affects the lives of soldiers in the Israeli military. It does have a section that talks about how Israel accepts people into the military despite their sexual orientation. While all the information in that section is true, it does not go into enough detail. The article mentions the 1993 policy, but I plan on explaining its role. The 1993 policy was put into effect to remove the 1983 policy.  Eyal Ben-Ari, Danny Kaplan, "Brothers and Others in Arms: Managing Gay Identity in Combat Units of the Israel Army," Sage Publications (2000):400.  The 1983 policy allowed prospective Israeli soldiers to be questioned about their sexual orientation. Scholars Ben-Ari and Kaplan suspect that the prospective soldiers' responses affected what military unit they would be assigned to. I also will mention how Ben-Ari and Kaplan, the scholars who wrote Sexual Orientation and Military Service, cited a study about how an Israeli soldier's sexual partner preference affects the way they are treated. The study conveyed that the soldiers bonded in the Israeli military through homophobic remarks and sexualizing women. Ben-Ari, Kaplan, "Brothers and Others in Army," 402.  There was another study that scholars Ben-Ari and Kaplan created that determined how gay Israeli soldiers responded to the macho man stereotype in the military. The gay soldiers either isolated themselves from the rest of the soldiers or attempted to adapt to the heterosexual norms. In the end, the soldiers' military performance was not affected by their response but their adaptation to the military was affected. Ben-Ari, Kaplan, "Brothers and Others in Army," 421 
If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk page (Natalie10319 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Orientation in the Israeli Military  

message: This article is rather large by now, but there is stil a lot that could be added with some work, because of that I think it would be good to split the rather large country section to Sexual orientation and military service by country. Does anyone have any opposition?★Trekker (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one goes ahead and voices any concerns soon enough I think I will go ahead and split it.★Trekker (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: on the map the Netherlands is marked as GBT, but I couldn't find any evidence anywhere that lesbian woman aren't allowed in the Dutch militairy. Can anyone search/confirm this? 321supermaximus (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Netherlands 

message: This section does not have a reliable link to the actual index, which makes it kind of useless and pointless to have as the first section of the article. What are you meant to learn here? I tried to find the index but as far as I can make out - and I may be wrong here - it hasn't been updated since 2014, which makes it not very useful. Discuss. LastDodo (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT Military Index

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved to LGBT people and military service. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexual orientation and gender identity in military service →  – In order to make the title more concise, without losing any precision. There isn't a huge amount of consistency among LGBT articles, but the use of LGBT for concision would align with a number of similar articles (e.g. religion and LGBT, Healthcare and the LGBT community). Xurizuri (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Comment on grammar, the title should probably be LGBT something, not just LGBT alone, such as "Military service of LGBT people" or "LGBT people and military service". This is along the lines of Chick-fil-a and LGBT people. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Support "LGBT people and military service" to align with Intersex people and military service and Transgender people and military service. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Support using "LGBT" somehow, more concise and common language. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 January 2022 

message: More Sources:
^ Ramirez, Maria Heliana; Rogers, Stephen Joseph; Johnson, Harriet Lee; Banks, Jon; Seay, Wanda Penny; Tinsley, Billy Lee; Grant, Andrew Warren (2013-02-01). "If We Ask, What They Might Tell: Clinical Assessment Lessons from LGBT Military Personnel Post-DADT". Journal of Homosexuality. 60 (2–3): 401–418. doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.744931. ISSN 0091-8369. PMID 23414279.
^ Myers, Meghann (2020-06-15). "LGBT service members are allowed to be out and proud, but a fear of repercussions persists". Military Times. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ Matarazzo, Bridget B.; Barnes, Sean M.; Pease, James L.; Russell, Leah M.; Hanson, Jetta E.; Soberay, Kelly A.; Gutierrez, Peter M. (2014-04). "Suicide Risk among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Military Personnel and Veterans: What Does the Literature Tell Us?". Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 44 (2): 200–217. doi:10.1111/sltb.12073. : Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Schuyler, Ashley C.; Klemmer, Cary; Mamey, Mary Rose; Schrager, Sheree M.; Goldbach, Jeremy T.; Holloway, Ian W.; Castro, Carl Andrew (2020-06). "Experiences of Sexual Harassment, Stalking, and Sexual Assault During Military Service Among LGBT and Non‐LGBT Service Members". Journal of Traumatic Stress. 33 (3): 257–266. doi:10.1002/jts.22506. ISSN 0894-9867. : Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Goldbach, Jeremy T.; Castro, Carl Andrew (2016-04-16). "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Service Members: Life After Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Current Psychiatry Reports. 18 (6): 56. doi:10.1007/s11920-016-0695-0. ISSN 1535-1645.
^ Resume, Empire (2021-10-14). "LGBTQ in the Military". Empire Resume. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ "A Brief History of LGBT Military Policy and Improving Acceptance, Integration and Health among LGBT Service Members". USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ "Serving with pride: LGBTQ Soldiers celebrate diversity, speak their truth". www.army.mil. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ "The Battles that Remain: Military Service and LGBT Equality". Center for American Progress. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
^ Nast, Condé (2020-05-13). "Over 80 Percent of LGBTQ+ Service Members Report Sexual Harassment in Military". them. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
Laurencraven (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Global LGBTQ Rights and Representation

message: "Until recently, many countries banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces." Could we get a full/approximate date as people might not know when this was Kaue (They/Them) (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting a date for a part