Swedish ary says supportg gay pri paras is as important as fendg the untry

Contents:

• THE SWEDISH ARMY IS LOOKG FOR A FEW GOOD QUEERS S NEW GAY-FRIENDLY AD CAMPAIGN
• SWEDISH ARY SAYS SUPPORTG GAY PRI PARAS IS AS IMPORTANT AS FENDG THE UNTRY
• BACKLASH AFTER SWEN’S ARMY SAYS PURPOSE OF MILARY IS TO DEFEND GAY RIGHTS
• SWEDISH MILARY SAYS SUPPORTG GAY PRI JT AS IMPORTANT AS DEFENDG COUNTRY
• RISHI SUNAK APOLOGIS TO LGBT VETERANS FOR PAST ARMED FORC GAY BAN
• LBIAN GAY BI-SEXUAL TRANSGENR (LGBT) PERSONNEL: A MILARY CHALLENGE

THE SWEDISH ARMY IS LOOKG FOR A FEW GOOD QUEERS S NEW GAY-FRIENDLY AD CAMPAIGN

It shows how LGBT policy has veloped Swen startg 1944, when homosexual acts were -crimalized, and analyz how sexualy and genr inty has been scribed and regulated ary policy.

General Acuntg Office report om the early 1990s (GAO 1993), which reviewed policy steps regardg homosexuals the ary 25 natns, cludg argue that the relevance of policy, practice, and disurse on LGBT the ary extends far beyond the ary ntext self.

SWEDISH ARY SAYS SUPPORTG GAY PRI PARAS IS AS IMPORTANT AS FENDG THE UNTRY

Here, masculy was (and is) actively and nscly nstcted and nsolidated, oftentim relatn and ntrast to notns of femy, as well as, late morn history, homosexualy (Bulmer 2011; Connell 2009; Hearn and Park 1995; Herbert 1998; Higate 2003; Kronsell 2012) most of the perd studied here, the SAF was the largt to send-largt state employer the natn (SCB annual seri). Furthermore, there is a risk that the acronym nceals that bat, policy, and activist work on LGBT rights have primarily attend to the rights of lbians and, particular, gays, while bisexuals and transgenr people have been margalized and largely renred visible. In terms of lbian, gay and bisexuals’ rights, a key policy step was taken 1944 when same-sex sexual relatns—or fornitn agast nature as had been referred to Swedish law sce 1864—were -crimalized, followg a refn public bate of homosexuals as mentally ill rather than sners (Lennerhed 2002; Rydström 2003).

While the -crimalizatn put an end to prosecutn on the ground of same-sex sexual relatns, homosexualy remaed the subject of extensive social stigma, wh homophobia growg the 1950s (Lennerhed 1994; Rydström 2007, 2012). Enterg the 1970s, the natn’s largt and most fluential gay and lbian rights activist anizatn, the RFSL (the Swedish Feratn for Sexual Equaly)—found 1950—was policized and tensified s stggle agast discrimatn.

BACKLASH AFTER SWEN’S ARMY SAYS PURPOSE OF MILARY IS TO DEFEND GAY RIGHTS

In the fall of 1979, 25 years after the -crimalizatn, homosexualy was -medilized when was removed om the Swedish Classifitn of Diseas (Socialstyrelsen 1979). Meanwhile, a missn had been appoted by the ernment to “propose measur which are need orr to remove any remag discrimatn of homosexuals” as well as “pile and give an acunt of available scientific documentatn about homosexualy” (SOU 1984:63, p 29, translatn by Rydström 2007, p. The proposals of the missn would a few years later rult the addn of “homosexual orientatn” to the grounds of discrimatn prohibed the Swedish penal (SFS 1987:610), as well as a new act on unmarried habe, givg habe same-sex and oppose-sex partnership the same legal stat (Rydström 2004).

In tanm, a new public office—the Ombudsman agast Discrimatn on the Basis of Sexual Orientatn (officially abbreviated “HomO”, pun tend)–was tablished orr to monor and promote pliance wh the newly approved Anti-Discrimatn Act (Rydström 2000) this perd, transgenr rights were to a large extent margalized. Durg both of them, the tablished ways of reprentg homosexualy as a problem were disloted and re-negotiated signifint First Turn SAF LGBT Policy (1971–1979)A signifint fdg is that  Swen, unlike many other natns (see e.

Wh very few exceptns, the bate durg this perd ncerned gay men, while lbians and transgenr people (be they lbian, gay, bisexual or heterosexual) were largely left out of the policymakg greatt challeng durg this perd were posed by the RFSL. Begng 1971, the RFSL lled to qutn a number of SAF matters, cludg an alleged statement by the Supreme Commanr disapprovg of homosexuals  mandg posns (RFSL 1972a) and the pictn of homosexuals as potential spi a booklet produced by the police, Secury Servic and the Armed Forc a jot actn (Säkerhetsupplysng. From 1969, when a new and nsirably more tailed versn was troduced, until 1976, the MMRP advised that nscripts diagnosed wh homosexualy, transsexualy or other “sexual anomali” (1978, p.

SWEDISH MILARY SAYS SUPPORTG GAY PRI JT AS IMPORTANT AS DEFENDG COUNTRY

In practice, the guil were not always strictly enforced (RFSL 1972c; SOU 1984:63), and there are reports om both wh and outsi of the SAF of homosexual and transgenred service members servg more or ls openly (see e.

In addn to servg as a gui the procs of asssg nscripts, we argue that the MMRP was important a wir symbolic sense, reproducg and legimizg the SAF’s stutnalized a rult of RFSL’s work, cludg succsfully pursug a se of prciple agast the Natnal Service Admistratn 1974 when a gay man was exempted om ary service agast his will (RFSL 1974; FSS 1974), the MMRP’s remendatns on so lled sexual anomali were revised, first 1976 and then aga 1980. The 1976 revisn entailed that homosexuals as well as transsexuals uld be nsired for service var ary divisns, although transsexualism was nsired a somewhat greater obstacle than homosexualy.

RISHI SUNAK APOLOGIS TO LGBT VETERANS FOR PAST ARMED FORC GAY BAN

Meanwhile, the new MMRP (1980) remendatn on transsexualy gave the examg physician the optn to le that the transsexualy was non-signifint for the nscript’s abily to 1979, the Supreme Commanr issued the first official statement on homosexualy the SAF (ÖB 1979). The rponsibily of managg both of the aspects was assigned to the homosexual dividual:What is ccial is the dividual’s pacy to al wh (that is, accept, ntrol and fd an outlet for) his sexualy.

For a mature dividual for whom, for example, homosexualy or other so-lled viant behavr is an accepted and ntrolled part of his personaly, this behavr is no grounds for special treatment the Armed Forc. Acceptg rather than hidg one’s sexualy was nsired particularly important for officers senr posns, sce an officer wishg to nceal his homosexualy was nsired a potential secury threat due to risks of blackmail. Lbians were not addrsed at all, sce women were not yet allowed to serve as nscripts or Supreme Commanr’s first policy statement marks the end of the first turn SAF LGBT policy, a perd which homosexualy the ary had been challenged and re-negotiated important ways.

This means that, formally speakg, homosexualy remaed a diagnosis wh the SAF, and uld be ed to exclu gay men om ary tn, trag and work, for another 10 years after the classifitn was removed om the Swedish Classifitn of this first turn LGBT policy velopment the SAF, the arguments ed to legimize the excln of homosexual men, enabled primarily through the MMRP, revolved around notns of secury and threat different ways.

LBIAN GAY BI-SEXUAL TRANSGENR (LGBT) PERSONNEL: A MILARY CHALLENGE

Three partly overlappg ways of reprentg homosexualy as a problem emerge om the first was based on the ia of the gay man as a potential threat to natnal secury. Based on such arguments, an openly gay soldier or officer would not have been nsired a threat to natnal secury sce the risk was nnected to a person’s wish to nceal his homosexualy. Such nsiratns were, however, not send way of reprentg homosexualy as a problem was amed as a matter of secury; not for the natn but rather for the gay man himself.