Opinion - Brothers and Sisters in Arms: Experiences of Gay Soldiers in the Australian Army
Abstract
The reality of service life for gay soldiers is far from straightforward.2 What is valued and cherished by some, such as a hyper-masculine culture, excludes others. For some, being gay is no more significant than possessing other characteristics, while for others, being gay singles them out for bullying and harassment: it seems there are no common denominators. Despite legislative and policy reform, incidents of bullying and harassment call into question the cultural attitudes that underpin our military service. What do we value? Why do we value it? At what cost? Gay men and women have adapted to service life in a variety of ways and it is through their stories that we begin to understand the realities of service life for gay men and women in the Australian Army today.
Introduction
This article is a response to a piece written for The Australian Army Journal on the experiences of gay soldiers during World War II. In my opinion, the authors raised more questions than they answered on how the sexuality of these soldiers shaped their military service. The fact that gay men had served during World War II in the Australian Army should surprise no-one. What was interesting to me was the daily reality for these soldiers. What impact did their sexuality have on their ability to do their job? How did gay soldiers respond to a hyper-masculine culture? Was it an issue? If so, why? The answers to these questions would have provided an understanding of what service life was really like for these soldiers during World War II.
The purpose of this article is to provide some understanding of the realities of contemporary service life for gay soldiers. Using the questions posed above, I intend to describe what life is like for a cross-section of gay men and women in the Australian Army today. This article reinforces current efforts to retain the best of our traditions while acknowledging that other things can be done better.
As an infantry officer in the Australian Army and a gay man, answering the questions posed above is something I felt qualified to do. And I can, very easily. My sexuality has had little or no impact on my military service and my ability to command soldiers. I have not been subjected to harassment or discrimination. I accept the Army’s dominant hyper-masculine identity, and finally, I am open about my sexuality.
I am also aware that my experience is not representative of all gay soldiers. This is due to many things. First, my experience in the Army is narrow. Since graduating from the Royal Military College in June 2009 I have only served in the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment. I am a male officer and therefore in a position of authority and not subjected to the vitriol often directed towards gay women. Also, I am comfortable with my sexuality and ‘out’ at work, thereby limiting the power of gossip, suspicion and innuendo that affects many closeted serving members. To understand what life is like for a cross-section of gay soldiers, I asked Army members from the Defence Gay and Lesbian Information Service to share with me the reality of their service life. Their responses have been paraphrased for this article. Their experiences are positive and negative, funny, sad and distressing. They are men and women in training institutions, units and on deployment. They are various ranks, corps and ages. Some are at the beginning of their careers while others are at the end. Two are no longer serving. While they form a small sample, 46 in total, they provide an insight into the daily realities of gay servicemen and servicewomen in the Australian Army today.
Who are these people?
The reality of service life for gay men and women in the Australian Army is varied. Among other things, gay individuals’ aptitude for soldering, their physical fitness, their acceptance of the dominant heterosexual hyper-masculine culture and their own acceptance of their sexuality combine to create diverse and contrasting experiences. This was clear from the range of responses I received for this article. Based on their opinions and experiences, they could be arranged into three broad groups.
In one group respondents believed their sexuality had little impact on their day- to-day life in the Army. They didn’t conceal their sexuality at work and in different ways sought to conform to the dominant military culture. This group reported little to no harassment or discrimination due to their sexuality. This group accounted for 27, or 59% of the 46 responses I received. I accept that this group may be the largest due to a willingness to contribute and a desire to promote their positive experiences.
In the second group, soldiers concealed the fact that they were gay in order to navigate their way through an environment they regarded as hostile to their sexuality. In each case these servicemen and servicewomen maintained a strict delineation between their professional and personal life to avoid being ‘outed’ in the workplace. This group generally questioned the validity of the dominant masculine culture, experienced little or infrequent harassment and struggled to conform to their own perception of what the dominant culture required of them. This group accounted for 15, or 32% of the responses I received.
The third group reported discrimination and harassment as a consequence of being gay. This group accounted for four, or 9% of the responses I received. I accept that for many reasons this number may not represent the reality across the Army, as victims of abuse, particularly recent abuse, were unlikely to share their experiences with me. Nonetheless, this group shows that discrimination and harassment is a reality for some gay soldiers in the Army today.
The history of exclusion to inclusion
This range of experiences belies the changes that have occurred in the Australian Army over the past 27 years — changes that have seen Army policies shift from exclusion to inclusion. From 1986 through to 1992, the Australian Defence Force sought to exclude gay men and women from service. Defence Instruction (General) Personnel 15-5 stated that homosexuality was prejudicial to effective command relationships, a threat to national security, that it was unhealthy and that it undermined the Australian Defence Force’s responsibility to protect minors from aberrant behavior. A male warrant officer class two from The Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery, now retired, wrote of his experiences during this time:
I kept my sexuality a secret because people were told back then that you couldn’t trust a homosexual. I also loved my job and wanted to keep it so I didn’t say anything … it was a different time … seeing how homosexuals were treated back then was incentive enough not to let anyone know. I relied on my mates and they relied on me … I knew they wouldn’t if they knew I was gay.
For many gay soldiers serving today, these policies and beliefs have little bearing on their daily work life. However, many still keep their sexuality hidden, compelled to hide their sexuality in order to fit in. For these soldiers it would seem little has changed. A male captain from The Royal Australian Corps of Signals, currently serving, wrote about his efforts to hide his sexuality:
I know my boss is homophobic from the comments he makes at work … if he found out I was gay I’d have no chance of getting on the trip next year so I remain closeted … it’s something that I have to be careful about because it’s easy to slip up when you’re talking about what you did on the weekend, where you went and who you were with. I have to be vigilant all the time … I know my rights but it’s just easier this way.
A female corporal from The Royal Australian Corps of Transport, currently serving, also wrote about her efforts to fit in with the dominant heterosexual culture in the workplace:
I keep my hair long because if a girl has short hair people always assume she’s gay. I’d prefer people got to know me as a person before I told them I was gay as their first impression of me as a gay Army chick isn’t good.
Evolution in Defence policy was resisted by all three services. At the time, the Australian Defence Force admitted that its members were prejudiced against homosexuals and that this was the root cause of the command and morale problems a shift in policy would cause.3 Nonetheless, given its commitment to upholding the values of tolerance and non-discrimination, values it expected the Australian Defence Force to defend, the Australian Government legislated change to align the Australian Defence Force with the wishes of the Australian community. A male lieutenant from The Royal Australian Army Ordinance Corps, currently serving, reflected on this:
We’re here not because they wanted us but because they were told they had to have us … I think this is still resented and is why there are these negative attitudes towards gays in the Defence Force … you have to prove yourself in order to be accepted, and even then it is done reluctantly.
Change in Defence policy, while it was externally imposed, reflected changes in how gay men and women were viewed more generally in Australian society. A female corporal from The Royal Australian Corps of Transport, currently serving, spoke about the generational factor when dealing with soldiers in her unit:
I don’t have a problem with the younger soldiers or officers. They have grown up with a different opinion of gay people … it’s the dinosaurs that just can’t accept me … and they never will.
In 2005 the Australian Defence Force, having been directed to do so by government, extended to same-sex couples the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. In 2009 same-sex partners gained access to veterans’ benefits. Today the number of recognised same-sex partnerships in the Australian Army is unknown.4 What is known is that by affording gay couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples, effectively legitimising their relationships, gay soldiers could for the first time fully integrate their service and personal lives. For those who serve openly, particularly soldiers who have only served after the ban was lifted, this hard-won recognition seems the norm. That said, the inclusion of a gay partner in Army social life serves as a reminder that your personal circumstances are at best different. My partner reminded me of this incident while I was writing this article:
I introduced my partner to my boss’ wife at a mess function and her reply was ‘partners in what business?’… it was awkward for everyone at the time but we all laugh about it now. While a minor, insignificant incident, it is indicative of the heterosexual bias that gay soldiers encounter not just within Army but wider society in general.
Culture war?
Why the Army resisted change goes to the heart of current discussions on Army culture. What was the senior leadership in the Army, as well as the majority of serving members, The Returned and Services League and many in the community fighting for? What were they fighting against? Allowing gay men to serve challenged the warrior culture of the Army. This was seen as a threat to the traditional values of the Australian soldier as well as those characteristics essential in any army: controlled aggression, discipline, professionalism and male bonding. Those resisting change believed that granting individual rights and freedoms would erode the Army’s collective strength. It was seen as a dangerous path that would ultimately undermine capability. The counter arguments, in addition to those founded on human rights, stressed that the Army could only be as good as the individuals within it — that allowing all its members to serve fully and openly could only strengthen the organisation.5 A male sergeant from The Royal Australian Corps of Signals shared his opinion on why the Australian Army had fought so strongly against lifting the ban on gay soldiers:
Most soldiers probably hadn’t met an openly gay person before … their perception of gay men was gleaned from stereotypes and what they had seen on television during Mardi Gras … images of effeminate and cross-dressing men reinforced the opinion that gay men were everything they weren’t … warriors.
A male lieutenant from The Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers also wrote about why he felt many had resisted the inclusion of gay men in the ranks:
I understand the insecurity for many and I don’t think much as changed … very few soldiers actually resemble the image of the iconic Australian soldier … the idealised Australian warrior … we’re not born soldiers nor are all of us the bronzed ANZAC we think we are. I think this causes many to feel uneasy with their own link to the past … to their own culture. So it’s easier to just exclude everyone that doesn’t conform to this image than challenge it and make it inclusive … we’d probably be better off if we came up with a more inclusive image of the Australian soldier.
A male lance corporal in The Royal Australian Army Ordinance Corps also spoke about the idealised image of the Australian warrior and questioned whether this was an issue just affecting gay soldiers:
The pressure to fit in is as much an issue for gay soldiers as it is for straight soldiers … there’s always pressure to conform and compete … always something to make you feel insecure. There’s always someone being picked on for some reason.
Army culture represents different things to different people. There is agreement on the core values of courage, initiative, respect and teamwork, namely because they are spelled out and visible; however articulating what our culture is and what is required of us seems subjective. A female lieutenant from The Royal Australian Army Ordinance Corps described what Army culture meant to her:
I am not physical and I am not a man so it is hard for me to identify with a culture based on this and not feel left out or that I don’t belong. I identify with the traits of honesty, integrity, humility, ingenuity, hard work and professionalism … I think that these are as much our tradition and our culture today as the typical masculine image most people have.
Many gay soldiers, both men and women, are comfortable with a culture based on notions of masculinity, and accept traditional and idealised notions of an Australian soldier. A male corporal from The Royal Australian Infantry Corps linked his identity as a man to the qualities of strength and competitiveness, relying on his physical abilities to secure his legitimacy and relevance in the workplace. This soldier’s experience shows that gay and straight soldiers alike share the need to prove themselves in contests to affirm their masculinity:
I’ve always felt the need to prove myself physically because that is how people are judged in the Army … if I can run faster than them and shoot more accurately than them, how can they tease me for being gay when based on their own criteria I’m a better soldier than they are?
Finally, a female warrant officer class two from The Royal Australian Corps of Signals spoke about the problem of having a culture that was not clearly articulated, one that means different things to different people:
Culture is created and needs to be shaped … we could learn a lot from private enterprise in the creation and maintenance of culture in our workplace … it seems too important to leave it up to the individual to determine what they want it to be.
The day-to-day reality
Gay soldiers have adapted to their work environments in a variety of ways. For some, a male-dominated, hyper-masculine work environment supports their understanding of Army culture. Others moderate their behaviour and conceal parts of who they are in order to fit in. A male corporal from The Royal Australian Army Medical Corps wrote about his light-hearted approach to dealing with his sexuality in the workplace:
I accept that many at work won’t know how to deal with me. I might be the first gay man they have ever met … I enjoy a gay joke as much as anyone and I think it is important to acknowledge the pink elephant in the room … it makes everyone feel at ease … I’m comfortable that having a joke about being gay doesn’t condone or enable homophobia. It works for me. Let’s not be too serious about it … we can then get on with the real task at hand.
Service life begins in a training institution. In these places, most gay soldiers make their first conscious decision whether or not they will serve openly. For me, this decision was quick and painless:
In the first week, out of the blue, someone asked if anyone was gay. I put my hand up and said I was … the other Staff Cadets in my section laughed as they thought I was joking. I told them that I wasn’t joking and that I was gay. They laughed again as they still thought I was joking. They got the message after I told them for a third time.
A male corporal from The Royal Australian Army Pay Corps also wrote about his experience in a training institution:
An instructor showed the trainees a highly inappropriate video between lessons that made fun of gay men. The instructor told the trainees as a joke that if they had a problem they should write it in their end of course evaluations … not thinking anyone would find the video offensive, but obviously knowing that it was. Several of us wrote him up and he was disciplined.
A common justification for the gay ban was that gay and straight soldiers were incapable of showering together; a gay soldier could not be trusted to control his sexual urges while a straight soldier would feel both uncomfortable and threatened. In reality this is not the case. A female corporal from The Royal Australian Corps of Transport wrote to me about her experience at Kapooka as a recruit:
I was reluctant to tell any of the girls that I was gay as I had to shower with them … I didn’t want them thinking I would be looking at them in a sexual way.
A male private from The Royal Australian Army Ordinance Corps also wrote about communal showers:
It’s not a time of the day I look forward to … while the straight guys get to play around with each other, flicking towels and running around naked … I just get in and out as quickly as possible. It’s never been sexual for me.
Being posted to a new unit, meeting someone for the first time or simply being asked if you are married or have children demands that a gay soldier make a conscious decision whether or not to ‘come out’. After weighing the risks and benefits of disclosure, and for a variety of reasons, a gay soldier may or may not ‘come out’. Some soldiers are out to everyone. Some are out to some and not to others. Some are out in some circumstances and not in others. Disclosure is not straightforward; at best it can be awkward, at worst it can open soldiers up to isolation and bullying.6 As I wrote this article I was reminded of the first few days at my unit:
I got a message that the Adjutant wanted to see me. He sat me down and told me that someone had written ‘fag’ against my name on the duty officer roster in the Guard Room … he wanted to know what I wanted to do about it. I told him that I was a fag and that I didn’t want to do anything about it. At the time I took it at face value but looking back I wonder if it was a test to see how I would react to homophobia and whether or not I’d be a troublemaker.
A female lieutenant from The Royal Australian Army Ordinance Corps wrote about her experiences when marching in to a new unit:
I wouldn’t say there were units where I have felt uncomfortable … but I have certainly worked with people that have made coming out less comfortable. I accept that some people just don’t agree or understand. I have moments when I get to a new unit and resent the whole process of coming out again. I do so in the knowledge that it makes it easier for the next gay soldier that comes along … I see that as my responsibility.
For many, being gay is not the biggest issue they face in their day-to-day life in the Army. A female corporal from The Royal Australian Corps of Transport wrote about life in a combat unit and the issues this raises:
Being gay doesn’t really affect me but that’s probably more to do with my role than anything else … I don’t command any soldiers. The Army is a boys club but I get along well with boys … it’s not my sexuality that makes me feel second rate, it’s the divide between ‘war-fighters’ and ‘loggies’ that sets me apart from others in my unit ... it is this divide and not my sexuality that makes me feel unwanted at times.
In 2010 a Facebook page was set up to ‘out’ and vilify serving gay men in the Army. While media attention and public comment brought this incident into the public arena where it was roundly condemned, the sentiment that underpinned it remains. A female corporal from The Royal Australian Corps of Transport wrote to me about her experience of harassment and bullying while on deployment:
On operations I was in command of an older man who would undermine me and refuse to follow my orders simply because I am a lesbian … I would give him a task and he would openly refuse to do it in front of my section saying that I was nothing but a worthless lesbian who couldn’t be trusted and who would get the section killed … he used his size and personality to stand over me. I formally complained but the bullying continued. I continued to complain and was eventually sent home early … it was swept under the carpet as far as I’m concerned. When I got home the incident caused me anxiety … I began to suffer from depression so I discharged.
A culture of reporting?
Many who contributed to this article speculated on why some gay soldiers seem to fit in more easily than others. Most agreed that if you were competent and ‘out’ then you stood the best chance of integrating within the unit. A female lieutenant from The Royal Australian Army Ordinance Corps wrote:
I have never been given much grief about being gay because I am upfront about it, I don’t harp on the fact that I’m gay and I am good at my job … I also behave like a decent human being. I think this sets me apart from many soldiers who have problems stemming from their sexuality.
The experience of the female corporal on operations highlights that simply being ‘out’ does not guarantee you will not be bullied. Nor is it correct to assume that those who are bullied or hide their sexuality are incompetent. A male sergeant from The Royal Australian Army Medical Corps wrote:
You have to be thick skinned for this job … you have to accept a level of homophobia and pick your battles. You’d never get any work done if you complained about every inappropriate comment … no one would think you were a team player.
This comment says a great deal about the culture of ‘not reporting’ in the Army. I too had no desire to report or investigate the fact that someone had written the word ‘fag’ against my name in the Guard Room. Four years on, if the incident occurred again, I’d probably behave in the same manner and ignore it. The female corporal on operations reported harassment but felt she got nowhere, feeling that her chain of command had adopted an attitude of ‘not reporting’ by sweeping her problem under the carpet by sending her home. Lieutenant Colonel Paul Morgan spoke publicly about the failings of the chain of command in dealing with those associated with the Facebook page that vilified serving gay soldiers. This bias towards ‘not reporting’ does the organisation a disservice. In seeking to shore up its strength, protect individuals and reputations, we inevitably undermine them.
The Chief of Army challenges this mindset with his recent comment, ‘the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.’ In many ways this speaks against the culture of ‘not reporting.’ Whether individuals don’t want to ‘rock the boat’ or they feel their chain of command has adopted a similar strategy, cultural change in the Army will require the attitude of ‘not reporting’ to also change. Evidence of this cultural change can be seen in the example provided by the male corporal who complained about inappropriate behaviour in his training institution. According to him, his complaint, combined with those of his gay and straight peers, was handled well and justice was served.
So what?
This article has highlighted various experiences of gay soldiers in the Australian Army. Many things make these soldiers different: their experiences, their sex, their age, their corps and their unit. More important than their differences is what they all share — the desire to serve, the desire to belong to a team that accepts them and the desire to achieve their full potential as human beings. These similarities link them to the rest of the soldiers in the Australian Army for surely we all share these motivations. For some, it is clear from their experiences that they have achieved what they set out to achieve; they feel they are valued and accepted for the contribution they make. For others, their resentment towards the Army and some of the people in it runs deep. These people have been prevented from meeting their full potential, and the Army is certainly poorer for this.
Writing this article has forced me to think about what life is like for other people. Service life is fine for me, and for many others, but this is not the case for everyone. Striking a balance between maintaining institutional values while valuing and protecting the individuals within that institution has created winners and losers. Is it acceptable that some soldiers cannot go to work and be themselves? Is it acceptable that some soldiers are subjected to bullying and harassment in the workplace? The answer to these last two questions is ‘no’. It is not acceptable nor is it good for the Army to have people burdened by the constant threat of being ‘outed’ at work. Equally, it is not acceptable or productive when soldiers are bullied, harassed and feel incapable of doing their job.
The Chief of Army spoke recently about treating our colleagues with respect and decency as a precondition of our employment. This seems straightforward. And it is. However, cultural change will only occur through training and leadership. Pathways to Change: Evolving Defence Culture seeks to shape our culture into the future. I had not read it and only did so because I was asked to write this article. It would seem that none of my peers has read it either. If few of us are engaged and committed to cultural change, will anything change? Will gay soldiers in 20 years’ time still be too afraid to tell their boss that they are gay because they feel they will miss out on a deployment? Given the persistence of these attitudes it seems highly likely. If we sit back and do nothing, nothing will change.
It would be facile if the sum of this article is simply ‘say no to bullying’. Soldiers will continue to bully one another and we must learn to deal with it; Army culture must evolve to deal with it. An organisation that upholds the value of diversity and prides itself on the fact that it is fully inclusive and professional in all respects is a good start. Equally important is an understanding of what reduces our capability — that discrimination, harassment and abuse of just one of us diminishes our collective capability. We must maintain the belief that we are only as good as the soldier who stands beside us — that we are all brothers and sisters in arms.
Endnotes
1 This title was inspired by the title of an article I read as part of my research. See D. Kaplan and
E. Ben-Ari, ‘Brothers and Others in Arms: Managing Gay Identity in Combat Units of the Israeli Army’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 2000, pp. 396–432.
2 I use the term ‘gay soldiers’ to refer to male and female officers and other ranks with same-sex attraction.
3 G. Brown, Homosexuality and the Australian Defence Force: The Issues, Background Paper Number 16, 14 August 1992, p. 7.
4 The Australian Army and the Australian Bureau of Statistics do not maintain statistics on the number of same-sex defacto partnerships in the Australian Army.
5 Brown, Homosexuality and the Australian Defence Force, pp. 1–10.
6 M.J. Eliason and R. Schope, ‘Shifting Sands or Solid Foundation? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Identity Formation’, The Health of Sexual Minorities, 2007, p. 18.
