How does the rhetoric of "unit cohesion" serve to justify exclusionary policies against LGBT service members?
There has been much debate about the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals in the military. While some argue that allowing them to serve openly would undermine unit cohesion, others contend that this is simply a pretext used to justify discrimination. This essay will explore how the rhetoric of "unit cohesion" serves to justify exclusionary policies against LGBT service members, focusing specifically on the United States Military.
The argument for excluding LGBT individuals from serving in the military often centers around the idea that their presence could damage unit cohesion, leading to distractions and tension within the ranks. Proponents of this viewpoint claim that soldiers must be able to trust one another implicitly in order to work effectively as a team, and that an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity can create divisions within a unit. They argue that this can lead to increased risk of violence and decreased morale, ultimately compromising the effectiveness of the entire force.
There is little evidence to support these claims. In fact, studies have shown that LGBT individuals are just as likely as straight individuals to form strong bonds with their fellow soldiers and perform well in combat situations.
Research indicates that the rhetoric of "unit cohesion" is frequently used to mask deeper forms of discrimination against LGBT individuals.
It has been argued that opposition to the inclusion of LGBT individuals stems not only from concerns about unit cohesion but also from homophobia and transphobia. Some opponents of LGBT inclusion may fear that allowing them to serve would mean accepting their lifestyles and beliefs, which they view as immoral or unnatural. As such, the rhetoric of "unit cohesion" provides a convenient way to disguise prejudice without appearing bigoted or intolerant.
The idea of "unit cohesion" itself is often exaggerated and misused. While it is important for soldiers to work together effectively, this does not necessarily require conformity or uniformity. In reality, many units operate successfully despite having members who come from different backgrounds and hold diverse views on various issues. Therefore, the argument for excluding LGBT individuals based on "unit cohesion" is largely unfounded.
The rhetoric of "unit cohesion" serves as an excuse to justify exclusionary policies against LGBT service members. This argument has little empirical support and appears to be more concerned with promoting traditional values than ensuring military effectiveness. By continuing to rely on this flawed logic, we risk perpetuating harmful attitudes towards LGBT individuals and limiting their ability to serve our country with honor and distinction.
How does the rhetoric of “unit cohesion” serve to justify exclusionary policies against LGBT service members?
Unit cohesion is often cited as a justification for not allowing openly gay service members to serve in the military. The argument goes that unit cohesion would be disrupted if gay soldiers were allowed to serve alongside straight ones because they would feel uncomfortable sharing intimate spaces like barracks rooms and showers with each other.