Without a shot fired; How gender ideology captured the UK's military charities

By L

Until the year 2000, gay people couldn’t serve in the British Armed Forces. This was a ban specifically on homosexuals and ‘homosexual behaviour’. Those serving who were suspected of being gay were often put under surveillance or had their rooms and personal belongings ransacked. Some were subjected to brutal intrusive physical examinations in a quest to find evidence of homosexual activity. If there was evidence they were gay, they were stripped of any military medals, forced out of the service and told they had brought the military into disrepute.

To address and rectify this, the UK Government commissioned a review to understand gay people’s experiences of serving in the military between 1967 and 2000 – the Etherton Review. While the report explains that the gay ban was a ban on homosexuality, they include trans-identified people (LGBT) in their conceptualisation of homosexuality with no explanation as to why. Any military restrictions or prejudices experienced by trans-identified people should be documented and addressed separately from gay people, as those individuals were not explicitly part of the military’s gay ban.

The findings of the Etherton review led to the establishment of the military charity Fighting with Pride. While they also acknowledge the gay ban was a ban on homosexuality they use the term LGBT+, again including trans-identified people in their conceptualisation of homosexuality with no explanation of why and with no apparent definition of what the ‘+’ refers to. Their founding partners include Stonewall, NHS England, the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, and a number of veterans’ charities, including RBL, SSAFA and the RAF Benevolent Fund.

Their work has involved efforts of ‘restorative justice’, including a Government funded public memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum – they report this is for LGBT people (no + this time). They name a number of partners they worked with on the memorial, including Stonewall, RBL, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the Government’s Office for Veterans’ Affairs, Ministry of Defence and Help for Heroes.

Fighting with Pride has also established a Pride in Veterans Standard, which they describe as a programme for organisations working with veterans that want to demonstrate their commitment to being inclusive and welcoming to LGBT+ veterans. Organisations meeting their standards have a logo of “Pride in Veterans Standard” (PiVS). Their website claims that “Fighting with Pride is a trusted and respected LGBT+ military charity…”, however this seems to be just an assertion as no evidence is provided to support this claim. They list many organisations that are part of PiVS that include NHS bodies, local councils, local charities and social clubs, and many veterans’ charities including COBSEO.

There are a number of problems here.

1. Including ‘trans people’ in the list of those affected by the military’s gay ban does a disservice to those who were actually affected by the ban, i.e. gay people. The ban had a huge impact on many in all aspects of their lives, and to this day some describe persistent feelings of shame associated with their sexuality. Any restorative justice needs to be addressed explicitly in relation to gay (LGB) people. To date, anyone who has tried to raise this issue has been ignored to the point where they have disassociated themselves with organisations pushing the LGBT or LGBT+ agenda.

2. The current approach does not do justice to the experiences of trans-identified people. They were not included explicitly in the gay ban, so their experiences of any prejudice or discrimination during military service remain unknown and unaddressed.

3. The unquestioning use of the terms LGBT+, LGBTQ+ and LGBTQIA+ by some military organisations: what specifically is meant by the Q and +, and what do organisations adopting these terms understand them to mean? They are controversial terms, with some stating they are highly offensive. Organisations should not adopt the terms without being clear what they are signing up to and associating themselves with.

4. Stonewall started as a charity to advance gay rights, but in recent years has moved away from this to promote gender ideology. Increasing evidence demonstrates the harm these ideologies are doing – particularly to gay people and to women – with some suggesting the movement is homophobic and misogynistic, and has links to paedophilia. A number of people in the military/veteran world have raised these issues, been ignored and as a result, have walked away from organisations, from restorative justice efforts and from their jobs. The list of organisations associated with Fighting with Pride (and by default Stonewall) is very long, their influence is pervasive. The result is that any services supporting military women also include men, and any services or associations aimed at gay people must include trans-identified people whether this is appropriate or not.

Where to go from here? In line with other sectors, the military and veteran world should disassociate themselves from Stonewall, and take a well-rounded approach to ensuring equality for all its people: men, women, and gay people. We are all different, but we are all human and we all deserve respect. The existing arrangement fails to embody that principle.