From 1983 - 1989, I served in the US Army Reserves. I was a young lesbian and didn’t transition until many years after leaving military service. Back then, being gay wasn’t just taboo—it was criminalized within the ranks. The justification was that we were a security risk and our presence would interfere with cohesion in the ranks. A queer soldier risked not only losing their career but also being handed a dishonorable discharge, branding them for life. But here's what I want you to understand:

The problem wasn't the presence of gay people in the military.

It was the power the anti-gay policies gave to bigots, and the problem bigots pose to cohesion in the ranks when given this power.

What I witnessed—and lived through—wasn’t a simple divide between gay and straight. It was a dynamic far more insidious: a system where fear ruled, and those who wielded bigotry as a weapon had unchecked control over everyone, queer or not.

Cohesion in the Ranks

My perception from talking with other service members was that the vast majority weren’t uncomfortable serving with gay people. My contact was with other young, low ranking women, so my anecdotal data was skewed. I clearly couldn’t do a scientific survey. But I can tell you that any survey soldiers are given, we never assumed our answers were confidential.

I provide the stats and links at the end of the post. The TL;DR is that support among service members for LGBT people to serve openly grew from less than 50% in the 1990’s to well over 50% today. And, a 2010 survey showed that on this topic service members were more concerned about leadership and harassment than the impact on combat readiness.

What About Security Risks?

The Department of Defense studies have never supported this accusation that we were a greater security risk.

A1986–1991DoD/PERSEREC report noted military leaders had no evidence that gay personnel posed security risks.

In 2010, Pentagon review showed approximately70%believed repeal of DADT would have no negative or even a positive impact

How Bigotry Impacts Cohesion in the Ranks

This system gave bigots outsized power. Whether it's the homophobic policies of the past, or the transphobic policies of the present, a single bigoted service member could weaponize bigoted policy and tear someone’s life apart. Worse still, they could silence straight allies by leveling the same threat at them:

"Are you defending that guy? What are you, gay too?"

It was McCarthyism in camouflage. Just like Senator McCarthy used the words “communist” and “homosexual” to end careers and silence dissent, anti-gay policies in the military did the same with the word “homosexual.”

This wasn’t just anti-queer oppression. Straight people were afraid to be friends with us or express support for us. It wasa tool of control, and everyone was vulnerable to it.

Silence, Coercion, and the Cost of Conscience

Straight people who tried to defend their gay colleagues often faced suspicion themselves. To protect their own standing, many stayed silent. Not because they agreed with the rules, but because the rules made resistance dangerous.

Those policies cost us something. It made the culture colder. It made friendship riskier. It bred mistrust.

We weren’t just afraid of punishment—we were afraid of being seen standing with each other. Standing with each other and trusting each other to defend each other’s very lives is the core of unit cohesion.

What I saw in the military wasn’t just homophobia—it was a system that taught people to turn on each other to save themselves.

That’s not discipline. That’s not patriotism. And it’s not healthy for unit cohesion. It’s control masquerading as order.

Why This Matters Today

This story isn’t just about the past.

Today, we’re watching new versions of these old tactics rise again: laws that target trans people, books being banned, teachers being silenced, communities being pitted against each other with weaponized morality under the guise of protecting women or children. And just like before, the goal isn’t just exclusion—it’s obedience through fear.

We must ask: Who gains power when fear spreads?

And what are we willing to risk to stand with each other, instead of against?

If this resonated with you, share it. These stories need to be told—not just to remember, but to resist repeating the same injustices with new names.

Reference Material:

Though I couldn’t find data from the 1980s, during early Don't Ask, Don't Tell(1993–2010), surveys indicated:

• About75% of maleand50% of female service members opposed gays serving openlyrand.org+6researchgate.net+6en.wikipedia.org+6

• Military Times and Annenberg surveys from mid-2000s found roughly40–60% opposition, with40–60% support for open serviceresearchgate.net. (About 50/50.)

• A2010 RAND confidential internet survey(with ~200 focus group participants and a larger sample) found:

  • "Virtually no hostility" toward gay/lesbian service members among participants.

  • Most already know or believe they're serving with gay or lesbian peers.

  • Concerns centered more on leadership and harassment than on combat readinessrand.org

• The 2015RAND Military Acceptance Project survey (16,000+ service members) reported6.1% identified as LGBT(4.2% men, 16.6% women), and about half of straight members still reported fear that the military environment wasn’t fully inclusiverand.org+9wired.com+9en.wikipedia.org+9.

A 2021peer-reviewed study surveying 486 active-duty service members found66% support for transgender individuals serving— including 75% among women and 82% among LGB service memberspmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.