Doomed to Repeat

In 1951, a member of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force who had been discharged for being gay wrote to the American Civil Liberties Union:

“[N]obody asked Squadron Commander about my character, nobody asked my work if I did my work well. (They, by the way, when I asked them for a recommendation for a civilian job, told me to write my own if I was in a way displeased with theirs-they recommended me without qualification)[.] To all this no attention was paid. To Washington, I was a non-entity with a homosexual contact. I ask you, for all those girls left, is this fair?-is it in keeping with the principles we shout so loud? How efficient can our armed forces be, with this sort of psychological warfare raging within? As an individual, I'm powerless; as an organization, can you help them?”

This letter, begging for help, was sent at a time during which witch hunts against lesbian women within the United States military were reaching an all-time high. The ACLU at the time unfortunately refused to provide the legal assistance requested, perhaps in part because of the chilling effect caused by anti-gay policies backed by the U.S. military and federal government.

Over seventy years later, with the recent chipping away of programs and policies designed to ensure the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ service members and federal workers, it is more important than ever that we acknowledge and grapple with the history of discrimination during the McCarthy era. Only by understanding the past can we work to ensure a future that avoids its failures and safeguards everyone against discrimination.

The author of the letter, the fourth woman to be discharged from her station at Wright-Patterson for being gay, wrote that she knew the women she’d left behind lived “in constant terror of the telephone.” Service members who were targeted for discharge because they were suspected of being gay often received discriminatory abuse while awaiting discharge. One individual interviewed for the book Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women In World War Two recalled being forced to eat out of trash cans and facing sexual harassment at the hands of guards while being held at a brig in San Francisco. Such brigs that were often referred to as “queer stockades.”

Once discharged, these service members were ineligible for typical veteran benefits, and because discharge records were public, it was difficult for these and other similarly discharged service members to find employment outside of the armed forces.

The fear LGBTQ+ service members during the 1940s and 1950s carried echoes of the fears current transgender service members express in the face of recent policy changes. While a U.S. judge recently requested that six transgender service members who filed suit to stop the new policy from being implemented not be removed prior to court proceedings, it is unclear what the future holds for LGBTQ+ service members across the United States.

A sense of fear and paranoia was deeply woven throughout policy in the 1940s and 1950s. After World War II, new recruits were subjected to lectures expressing increasing hostility towards LGBTQ+ people, going so far as attempting to tie homosexuality to grisly murder cases involving women and children. The lectures would also point out that LGBTQ+ people, which they labeled as “dangerous sexual psychopaths,” had been discovered within the ranks of the military during the war and were promptly discharged. While previously considered a moral threat, members of the LGBTQ+ community were more and more being characterized as a legitimate danger to country and national security, which ultimately led to the Lavender Scare and the Senate Hearings of the 1950s. In the absence of concrete evidence that gay service members acted in a way that was a genuine threat to security during and after World War II, lawmakers were tasked with building a defense of their discriminatory treatment based on hypotheticals and possibilities.

Without evidence that U.S. military efforts have been endangered by the presence of transgender service members, the rationale for exclusionary policy remains unclear.

The result of 1940s/1950s Senate hearings, investigations, and reports on gays in the military and federal government was catastrophic to not just gay individuals wishing to serve in the military, but those wishing to work in any government job at all. Discharge of gay government employees saw a sharp increase throughout the 1950s. Journalists such as Max Lerner for the New York Post drew a direct comparison between these discharges and the discharges of service members during World War II. This systemic ostracization laid the groundwork for subsequent modern policies like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which weaponized shame to force service members into the closet.

While recently unveiled policies appear to target transgender individuals, without reference to other queer identities, the broader implications of these policies remain uncertain. In an overhaul of federal websites, a Labor Department webpage with information about discrimination based on sexual orientation was completely erased. Additionally, within the text of an order on the topic of transgender individuals, there is language challenging the ruling of Bostock v. Clayton County, which prohibited not just discrimination based on gender identity, but discrimination based on sexual orientation as well. The text of the executive order regarding Bostock instructs the Attorney General to counsel agencies on correcting “the misapplication” of the Supreme Court’s rule to sex-based distinctions in agency activities. And while the intent of this directive is framed in language appearing to simply encourage clarity in policy implementation, advocates have raised concerns about the potential fallout of Bostock challenges.

As policy changes continue to emerge, it is vital to equip ourselves with a better understanding of the attacks, persecution, and discrimination members of the LGBTQ+ community have endured at the hands of our government throughout history. We must utilize that knowledge to ensure history doesn't repeat itself.

Military service and service to the federal government are a selfless sacrifice one makes to their country; a sacrifice that should ensure individuals are treated with dignity in service regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. While Defense Secretary Hegseth appears to be cognizant of this deserved dignity, going so far as to make mention of it in a recent memo disallowing the enlistment of transgender individuals into the military, the fact remains that recent policy changes signify a return to a dark chapter in America’s history of mistreating the LGBTQ+ community.

Civil rights, Equality and Liberty, LGBTQ Equality