Batwoman Episode 01/04 "Who Are You?"

[Dr.]

The reason she has to sign the document in the first place is because, under DADT, you could not be out. You were forbidden from disclosing your sexual orientation, having relationships, or speaking on the subject. She was not allowed to be out. She joined an organization where they said that up front, so either she joined with the intent of not being out... or she joined intending to continue to be out and for her time there to be a revolving door. The latter is a pretty weird motivation...

I appreciate your point.

But I think there’s some ambiguity involved that makes an alternative interpretation at least plausible. To wit: I’m not sure how much real-world fact and history can be mapped onto Batwoman’s fiction. On the one hand, it’s conceivable that Kate (currently 29) could have been at the military academy before DADT was rescinded in 2011. On the other, BW’s version of a military “code of conduct” (circa 2011) has some curious features. For instance, despite being caught in flagrante (ample grounds for dismissal, apparently), Kate and Sophie can save their military careers by simply denying the charge (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) and signing a paper. This isn’t just wonky but it seems at odds with the actual DADT - in that this proceeding entails both “asking” about sexual orientation and “telling” (an obvious lie) about sexual orientation. Bottom line: while it’s clear that Kate was expelled for engaging in homosexual conduct, this fictional academy’s requirement that gay cadets remain closeted (and for Kate to actively deny her orientation) isn’t really established. Thus, her narration about being “out and proud” at an early age isn’t - to my mind - an obvious contradiction.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I appreciate your point.

But I think there’s some ambiguity involved that makes an alternative interpretation at least plausible. To wit: I’m not sure how much real-world fact and history can be mapped onto Batwoman’s fiction. On the one hand, it’s conceivable that Kate (currently 29) could have been at the military academy before DADT was rescinded in 2011. On the other, BW’s version of a military “code of conduct” (circa 2011) has some curious features. For instance, despite being caught in flagrante (ample grounds for dismissal, apparently), Kate and Sophie can save their military careers by simply denying the charge (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) and signing a paper. This isn’t just wonky but it seems at odds with the actual DADT - in that this proceeding entails both “asking” about sexual orientation and “telling” (an obvious lie) about sexual orientation. Bottom line: while it’s clear that Kate was expelled for engaging in homosexual conduct, this fictional academy’s requirement that gay cadets remain closeted (and for Kate to actively deny her orientation) isn’t really established. Thus, her narration about being “out and proud” at an early age isn’t - to my mind - an obvious contradiction.

Yes, just like in the original comic. Where she just had to deny it, and it would go away. Because her family has a military history, and they were offering her a life line based on nepotism.

Also yes, it's an obvious contradiction. Because if they can kick her out for being gay, why did she go there in the first place? Because if she is out and proud, why would she attend a school where that isn't possible? Because they make it clear she does know:





Also also, they literally call it the, "Don't ask, don't tell" scene, while talking about the policy and what that means:

Ruby Rose on ‘Batwoman’s’ Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Scene

 

[Snow Queen]

I appreciate your point.

But I think there’s some ambiguity involved that makes an alternative interpretation at least plausible. To wit: I’m not sure how much real-world fact and history can be mapped onto Batwoman’s fiction. On the one hand, it’s conceivable that Kate (currently 29) could have been at the military academy before DADT was rescinded in 2011. On the other, BW’s version of a military “code of conduct” (circa 2011) has some curious features. For instance, despite being caught in flagrante (ample grounds for dismissal, apparently), Kate and Sophie can save their military careers by simply denying the charge (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) and signing a paper. This isn’t just wonky but it seems at odds with the actual DADT - in that this proceeding entails both “asking” about sexual orientation and “telling” (an obvious lie) about sexual orientation. Bottom line: while it’s clear that Kate was expelled for engaging in homosexual conduct, this fictional academy’s requirement that gay cadets remain closeted (and for Kate to actively deny her orientation) isn’t really established. Thus, her narration about being “out and proud” at an early age isn’t - to my mind - an obvious contradiction.

While I don't disagree it doesn't seem to be the most accurate of portrayals, I don't think that's the result of it not being intended as DADT. They've explicitly referred to it as DADT, both in the media tour and with this featurette:

Spoiler

I can't say whether or not real life involved signing a paper or not, but if not then I feel like that's a casualty of trying to replicate something from the comics without the proper context. In the comics, she gets pulled into the office of one of the higher ups there and he asks her point blank after a fellow student reports on her. They worked with her father and dead mother, and for their sakes gives her the opportunity to deny it and go back to things. She does not. The show doesn't provide such context, as it skips over the scene entirely in favour of picking up afterwards. But this isn't a case of a fictional rule. I seem to recall noting while watching the pilot that her age placed her as able to sign up while DADT was in effect, but I couldn't tell you at this point what age they gave her.