There are times when I am in a military base or organization and when the topic of non-heterosexuals in the military comes up in a group and lots of comments come around. There is generally a lot of hoopla given to some sort of harsh statement as the following:
“I don’t want those ‘gays’ seeing me in the shower”.
I cleaned it up a bit but you can imagine the slander. As I mentioned in another post there are issues of masculine identity at work. But I will often call these individuals out, for often time it is a loud-mouthed individual who manages to wrestle control of the conversation and the perceived viewpoint of normalcy because nobody else challenge him. But as one person challenges bigotry, if done well and from a perceived position of strength (not a whiner, not weak). Being that I’ve completed my degree in Psychology and nearly finished with one in Philosophy, I am adept at logical debate in how premises and conclusions work. As such I’ve developed a trap.
Note. This trap is sexist in language. It is intended as a trap and as such it is ‘sneaky’ in that it gives a sense of safety before the trap is sprung. If anyone is offended I apologize.
Imagine two soldiers are talking. At some time earlier Soldier A made anti LGBT comments. Soldier B held his tongue for the time being, recognizing the tactical situation as a futile assault at the time. However it is later in the day and an opportunity presents itself for a counter attack.
An attractive female soldier walks by. Soldier A makes a comment about how she looks. Soldier B agrees. Some banter ensues about her appearance. Soldier B then asks Soldier A if he has seen the movie Starship Troopers. Soldier A has. Soldier B makes a comment about the co-ed training in the movie and the showers are co-ed. Soldier A makes a comment how it’d be nice to have co-ed showers now so he can see the female soldier that just walked by in a shower. Soldier B then asks about another known female soldier that is not regarded as attractive by Soldier A. Soldier A winces and says it wouldn’t matter. Soldier B then asks Soldier A what about the unattractive female Soldier and if she saw him naked in the shower. Soldier A scoffs and says that it still wouldn’t matter at all. Soldier B asks, for clarification, if unattractive female soldiers seeing Soldier A naked is a big deal? Soldier A says it is not. Soldier B then asks, so why is it that a gay male seeing him naked IS a big deal?
Soldier A has been ambushed in a kill zone. You set up a series of propositions and get your target to get there and then you spring a natural conclusion. The propositions is that ‘it is okay for someone I am not interested in having sex with to see me naked’
Soldier A now is in an uncomfortable position and when I’ve used this in the past they usually resort to getting into a huff, citing the bible, and then leaving. There is nothing to stand on. They cannot claim callous sexual leering from gay men because they were just exposed as performing callous sexual leering themselves. They were faced with their own selves and found it hard to defend.