View source for Sexual orientation and gender identity in the Themiclesian military

'''Sexual orientation and gender identity in the Themiclesian military''' has a lengthy and mixed, contradictory history.  Through the services' lack of integration and differing beliefs and objectives, there has been little inclination to establish a pan-military policy over sexual orientation until the 1960s.  Historically, Themiclesians did not officially impose punitive rules against homosexuals, though isolated cases of persecution have been demonstrated.  Under Casaterran notions of morality, health, and military culture, some services and units enacted rules in varying degrees against homosexuality and sometimes punished it, with or without intercourse.  After [[Mediatization (Themiclesian military)|mediatization]], pan-service rules against homosexuality appeared in the late 19th century; however, the definition of "homosexuality" without evidence of intercourse was never resolved at law, generating corruption and abuse.  Rules against homosexual attraction were overturned as crimes of thought in 1947.<ref>Barrister Hwiar Bjum noted, "Even thinking about treason is completely legal.  Why should thinking about having sex with another man be illegal?"</ref>  Debate continued over unit cohension and health of homosexual intercourse.  In 1968, consensual homosexual intercourse in all demesne forces was decriminalized.<ref>All forces that were not especially regulated by an ethnic or local authority.</ref>  However, discrimination based on sexual orientation persisted for years after decriminalization and is still alleged frequently in modern times.

==History==
===Antiquity and medieval period===
Historically, Themiclesians felt little antipathy towards homosexuality.  Consensual, homosexual acts were not punished, while heterosexual acts were instead, for the potential of generating unwanted offspring.  Ancient military manuals strongly argued barring soldiers from the company of women, for fear of "whores in the encampment", since such females could be spies and a burden to a marching army.  Additionally, generals loathed the prospect of soldiers developing an emotional connection with females, against on grounds of cohension and logistical problems.  Conversely, there are no historical records of homosexuality being consistently punished.  

Nevertheless, isolated cases of persecution have occurred, especially in the early navy.  The naval culture of Themiclesia during the Rjang and Meng dynasties was highly sueprstitious, sometimes performing human sacrifices in case of unfavourable winds, storms, or other omens.  In at least a dozen cases, homosexuality was thought to imperil ships by inviting storms, and captains forbade intercourse accordingly; those who violated it would be deemed traitors and be cast overboard.  It should be noted that this was not by any means a ''rule'' in the navy, as many other kinds of activity could result in the same reaction.  In the 10th century, a travel-writing catalogued all "naval taboos", and homosexuality was amongst them; however, as he observed, "observing all taboos would make voyage impossible."

===19th century===
Attitudes began to shift in the beginning of the 19th century, when Casaterran dogmata were formally introduced.  Homosexuality became taboo in some military bodies.  In the middle of the century, a number of military commanders educated in Casaterra began discouraging homosexual activity amongst their men, though this was disciplinary action rather than formal indictment and conviction.  Under Tyrannian influence, the ''Sodomy Act'' of 1858 made homosexuality in the navy punishable by penal servitude, but this law was repealed in 1860 under the Conservative government and then reinstated in 1862 under the Liberal government.  After fierce debate on the floor, it was decided that whether to punish sodomy would be decided by the ship's captain, relying on the power of ship-captains (civilian or military) over the activities of the crew and passengers on ships.  At first, reaction was mixed, but by 1870 virtually every captain banned homosexual activity aboard his ship.  The force of this power did not formally extend to activity ''off'' ships, but captains took to ordering marines to monitor the activities of sailors offboard and prevent any homosexual contact.  

====Tsam &c. v the Admiralty====
In 1873, a pair of sailors arrested a trio of spying marines and committed them to a civilian police jail, on a fictitious charge of debt.  When the fiction was discovered upon the trio's interrogation, the sailors averred to the local magistrate that they feared punishment since the trio had discovered they were "at it" in a local bar and threatened to expose them if they were not allowed to participate in their intimate activity.  Within the week, the statements were widely printed on national newspapers, scandalizing the Admiralty.  It immediately requested the trio be released and return the pair of sailors to the naval court-martial.  However, the Captain-General of Marines opined that the incident occurred ''off-board'' and jurisdiction belonged to the local magistrate, not to the Admiralty's courts.  Nevertheless the two sailors were quickly convicted, and the trio were remitted to the Captain-General for court-martial.  The latter were initially convicted of violating their captain's rule against sodomy and thus guilty of criminal insubordination, but on appeal, [[Trjuk Krjên-magh]] opened a {{wp|kangaroo court}} and acquitted the trio within a single minute.  His reason for judgment was that the customary power of captains to punish crew and passengers did not extend off-board.  The radically differing judgment outcomes generated public attention.

The ''Times of Themiclesia'' wrote of the case as "Sodomites v Sodomites", ridiculing the Admiralty's hypocricy, driving known homosexuals to arrest other homosexuals.  The Admiralty requested the Captain-General introduce legislation at Parliament to criminalize homosexual contact between marines; Trjuk promptly refused, claiming this was "Liberal nonsense".  The dispute escalated, and Trjuk acquired the support of other senior military figures such as the Colonel-General of the Privy Cavalry, who stated that the whole "pogrom against homosexuals" was "an extortion racket by middle-class, Liberal admirals."  When the Vice Admiral wrote in the Gentleman's Journal in April 1874 outlining the argument against homosexuality, Trjuk replied by making a speech in the Commons that, "Only middle-class people read that sordid, disreputable journal.  Only the feeble-minded and nouveau-riche cannot tolerate homosexuality."  At the time, the Commons permitted former members to make speeches on the floor, as long as they were sponsored by a sitting member; however, none of the admirals were former MPs like Trjuk was.  At the end, Trjuk was forced to convict the three marines of blackmail, which they did actually commit.

====Army's policies====
[[File:Themi local homosexual.gif|thumb|Prefectures whose militias officially barred homosexuals in 1900 from service in red]]
In late 19th century, several prefectures enacted policies against homosexuals serving in the militias and punishments were established.  Generally speaking, Liberals, who desired modernization, criticized homosexuality and connected its practice with Themiclesia's apparent political and military weakness, while Conservatives rejected this connection as unfounded; despite these views, legislative activity, especially over the entire military, has been scant.  In the period, militia code of conduct was for the most part up to the local authority in which the militia was raised, with military law imposed only when the unit was sent on expedition.  Thus, policies on homosexuality could vary and fluctuate between agnosticism and prosecution quite frequently.  For example, the militia of Prjin was forced to expel homosexuals four times, in 1887, 1890, 1922, and 1927, each time after they had been rehabilitated.  These actions were largely taken by the prefectural marshal, the civil servant controlling the prefecture's militia.  The Ministry of War never opined on the subject of homosexuality, believing it to be largely irrelevant, i.e. it was harmless whether they were included or not.  An internal paper was circulated in 1910 noting that exclusion of homosexuals would only cause administrative problems for the marshal, so it was expected that "such tomfoolery would run its course soon".

===Pan-Septentrion War era===
In the Pan-Septentrion War, which saw the integration of the various arms of the [[Themiclesian Army]], homosexuality was not included in the Consolidated Army Penal Code, though individual regiments continued to impose disciplinary action from caning, fines, up to expulsions on account of homosexuality, even without intercourse.  The Navy banned homosexual intercourse between sailors, citing the spreading of venereal disease; this ban, however, did not apply to intercourse with "civilians", which in naval terminology included the servicepersons of other services.  The Air Force was officially agnostic about homosexuality, but in reality many wings and bases retained some rules against "carnal knowledge of each other"; antagonism against gays was probably the most severe there, since its middle-class members tend to be Casaterran-influenced.<ref>Parts of the Air Force retained "club rules", where members were expected to be of a certain social class and be thereby characterized.</ref>  This "messy and haphazard legislative regime" encouraged "homosexual fraternities" to grow in all parts of the military to advocate for its members.  After the PSW, the War, Navy, and Air Ministries continued to pursue contrasting policies on homosexuality.  The inclusion of women in military service after 1950, though perceived as a separate issue, encouraged homosexuals to speak more openly about sexual equality, which at times and places provoked more aggressive suppression from military authorities.  Scholars note that suppression campaigns were dependent on the political affiliation of the military leadership before the 1970s, after which sexual orientation ceased to be strongly correlated with political affiliation.

===Post-war era===
[[File:Cheng_Biguang.jpg|thumb|Rear Admiral Tsro-gal]]
In 1950, Rear Admiral Tsro-gal was convicted by Parliament for his inconsistent application of what constituted "a homosexual" (男癖, ''nem-p′êk''), which vagueness enabled him to extort money from defendants accused thereof.  He had been acquitted by an internal inquiry, but a grieved sailor's MP, who was a lawyer, litigated the case in the lower house as impeachment.  Having been convicted by a razor-thin margin of two votes in the Commons, the rear admiral was placed under house arrest for 19 years, and he and his accomplices were dismissed from office with (intentionally) debilitating fines imposed, but the Navy continued to enforce rules against homosexuality.<ref>These fines, assessed at 999 million [[Auric catty (Themiclesia)|m′rjing]] each officer, were intended to be impossible to pay, thus forcing them into penal debt servitude.</ref>  Moreover, amongst naval officers, the case was construed as a Conservative interference in the navy's internal affairs.  The Liberals voiced the accomplices' grievances, largely ignoring the rear adimral's case.  They cited that the Conservatives had effectively sentenced them to life imprisonment and disinherited their descendants for "a trivial offence committed in good faith and dedication to the nation's defence".<ref>If their descendants claimed their inheritance, they would too be saddled with the unpayable fine.</ref>  Under the Liberal government and favourable public opinions, Parliament in 1953, and on the centenary of the abolition of capital punishment, divested itself of the power to impose arbitrary punishments; the Commons voted in favour of this measure, while the Lords strongly objected to it, considering it dangerous.<ref>Historians differ on their interpretation of this matter.  Some have stated that the Conservatives were enraged through the loss of civilian control driven by the PSW and released the party's frustration on the rear admiral, whose "greater crime was military impudence towards the civil authority."  Liberals considered the process of impeachment a "vestigial savagery of previous ages".</ref>

===1960s===
Official opinions on homosexuality began to change in 1961. The War Ministry commissioned parallel internal and external studies whether homosexuality had any impact on military service, and the internal panel believed it had some sort of "intangible" negative influence.  External experts stigmatized the reasoning of the other panel, calling their reasoning prejudiced and unfounded.  When Brigadier Gwjang rejoined in a plenary session that homosexuality was immoral, Dr. Gwjang MD (no relation) rebuked him that "it is immoral to kill humans, and yet you do it every day.  It is wrong and treacherous for an armed force to moralize, when they should singularly pursuing effectiveness.  The evidence does not show that homosexuality has any negative effect on effectiveness, which makes you a bare-faced liar for saying so."  Dr. Gwjang stormed out of the room and refused to return unless Brig. Gwjang was expelled.  During his absence, Dr. Gwjang published a pamphlet at his own expense in multiple cities, striving to demonstrate the War Ministry's dishonesty in analyzing the evidence.  Brig. Gwjang resigned his brigadiership after his suit for defamation on Dr. Gwjang was dismissed in 1962.  

The War Ministry began to compile existing research work by other domestic and foreign militaries on the subject.  While none of them endorsed the wholesale integration of homosexuals, the Consolidated Staff said to the War Minister that "it can present no conclusive proof that homosexuality in any capacity affects military effectiveness" but nevertheless, on the grounds of international image and hence ease of co-operation, could not recommend allowing homosexuals to serve in the military.

The Air Force, on the other hand, continued to utilize the charge of "ungentlemanly conduct" against homosexual behaviour, which included kissing on the mouth or sexual intercourse between males.  The Chief of Air Staff, in a meeting with the Secretary of State for the Air Force, said that "homosexuality is a shameful matter that has no place in a military context, where members of the service must hold each other in a certain esteem in order to co-operate under immense pressure".  When the Air Minister asked if he had objections against homosexuals in civilian staff, he said that he "had no opinion".  Questioned in Parliament, the Air Minister averred that "the ultimate purpose of the Air Force must be the safest and cheapest rejection of foreign incursion, even if that means appeasing the prejudices of members of the service."  He further responded that it is not his policy to "correct the opinions of members of the Air Force, but to organize and avail of their talent and dedication."  Asked if he would therefore "tolerate and perpetuate evil beliefs", he replied that "there are greater evils yet not corrected, and the evil of prejudices against homosexuals will be left for future and better generations, with their more plentiful resources, to rectify."  The Air Minister's statements are known in Themiclesia as the ''Appeal to Economy'' argument against homosexuality.  

When the War Ministry's reports were delivered to the Air Force, the Chief of Air Staff rejected its findings saying that "there are many things that have no demonstrable effect on effectiveness, but we do not allow service members to do.  This is because members must be able to regard each other as something more than merely not illegal, and this includes not lusting on each other."  The editor of the ''Gay Themiclesia'' remarks in 1963, "His statements indicate there were indeed gay people in the Air Force, but to earn each other's respect they must refrain from attraction."  While the chancellor of the Army Academy said of the Air Force in 1966, "At least it is not seeking to justify its homophobia on the false grounds of effectiveness", he also said that the Chief of Air Staff "sought to exchange an observable hypothesis (that homosexuality personally affects effectiveness) for an unobservable one (that homosexuality affects the esteem of aviators in each other's eyes, which esteem affects effectiveness)".  He thus concluded the Chief of Air Staff was "not an academic and therefore not qualified to hold public office" and recommened the Air Minister dismiss him.  This was rejected.  

The Marines in the 60s danced around the problem of homosexuality with the statement that they "must obey the ruling of ship-captains while onboard", which meant they banned homosexual contact, since most captains were against it.  Historian James C. Cartier states that the Marines feel sandwiched between rejecting the legacy of their former captain-general [[Trjuk Krjên-magh]] and adopting the anti-homosexual policy of the Consolidated Fleet.  Trjuk (in office 1870 – 1881) stated quite plainly in 1871, "I like men."  While his statement (amongst other things) caused indignation throughout the Marine Corps, he proved extremely popular because he shortened the 20-year term of service to 9, raised pay by almost 50%, and abolished the hated militia fine.<ref>Militia service was mandatory for all able-bodied Themiclesian men until 1898.  Men who did not wish to serve alleged a handicap, and by the mid-1800s this practice was not challenged.  Those who did not resort to this had to pay the "militia fine", nominally so that the government could hire someone to take his place.  Marines must pay the militia fine because they could not claim to have a handicap, which reduced their effective salaries by about 15%.  This fine was also imposed for professional sailors until 1858 but not pressed sailors.  The historical situation on pressed marines changed over time.  In the 14th and 15th centuries, it was absolved; after 1520, it was usually but not always imposed.</ref>

when the Exchequer of Appeal upheld marriages between two persons of the same gender.  The Tribunes refused leave to appeal, making the decision absolute.

==Notes==
<references />

==See also==
*[[Themiclesia]]

[[Category:Themiclesia]][[Category:Septentrion]]