'pentagon Lists Homosexuality As Disorder'

[Black Dagger]

From the Washington Post/AP - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6061901026.html

& at the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5100828.stm

Pentagon Lists Homosexuality As Disorder

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
Monday, June 19, 2006; 11:05 PM

WASHINGTON -- A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position.

The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.

Critics said the reference underscores the Pentagon's failing policies on gays, and adds to a culture that has created uncertainty and insecurity around the treatment of homosexual service members, leading to anti-gay harassment.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin said the policy document is under review.

The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, uncovered the document and pointed to it as further proof that the military deserves failing grades for its treatment of gays.

Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the center, said, "The policy reflects the department's continued misunderstanding of homosexuality and makes it more difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services."

The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association.

"It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake," said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.

Congress members noted that other Pentagon regulations dealing with mental health do not include homosexuality on any lists of psychological disorders. And in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday, nine lawmakers asked for a full review of all documents and policies to ensure they reflect that same standard.

"Based on scientific and medical evidence the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 _ a position shared by all other major health and mental health organizations based on their own review of the science," James H. Scully Jr., head of the psychiatric association, said in a letter to the Defense Department's top doctor earlier this month.

There were 726 military members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy during the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. That marked the first year since 2001 that the total had increased. The number of discharges had declined each year since it peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and had fallen to 653 in 2004.
-------------------


This is really strange considering that, "other Pentagon regulations dealing with mental health do not include homosexuality on any lists of psychological disorders" - so why this one? Personal prejudices? Institutional prejudice?

[TC]

...generally, i think a great deal of things characterized as 'mental disorders' are not, certaintly not homosexuality, but also not the personality disorders, paraphilias, most of the childhood disorders, etc.


However, for prudency, i think its a good thing that the Pentagon classifies a ton of perfectly healthy people who would make decent soldiers as 'mentally unfit'...because it hurts the pentagon. A bunch of arabic translators were dismissed for being gay last year; clearly a good thing, it means fewer people they can use to torture arabic speaking resistance fighters. I'm also absolutely unconcerned with the rights of anyone who wants to be an american soldier, whether they're gay or straight, i hope gay american soldiers lives are misurable, not cause they're gay but cause they're american soldiers.


I think the campaign to remove the American military's prohibition of gays is really dumb...and if theres a draft, i'm sure all of the gay 20 year old americans are gonna be wishing that they still considered them unfit for duty lol. Plus people wont be able to fake being gay to get out of it.


(obviously i think the Cuban and Venezuelan armies shouldn't discriminate against gays though :-p)

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by TC+--> (TC)I'm also absolutely unconcerned with the rights of anyone who wants to be an american soldier, whether they're gay or straight, i hope gay american soldiers lives are misurable, not cause they're gay but cause they're american soldiers.[/b]

Hmmm, i don't think that this can really be given a 'progressive' twist.

Yes it's great that LESS people will be in the army, but promoting homophobia (classfying homosexuality as a mental disorder, insta-discharging anyone who is 'revealed' to be gay etc is not progressive regardless of the context.

The army's policies on queer soldiers perpetuate the homophobic attitudes of hetero soldiers and contribute to a social culture of homophobia - and these are people who will eventually be living back in US society. Moreover, like with the prohibition on same-sex marriage, classifying homosexualty as a 'mental disorder', all the armies restrictions on queer soldiers etc. perpetuate prejudiced ideas about queers in the heteosexual community at large, back home ->> That's bad.

That you are "unconcerned" about this shows a disturbing lack of forethought, do you think that such classifications and policies have no effect on broader views? That is incredibly naive.

TC

I think the campaign to remove the American military's prohibition of gays is really dumb...

But yet you uncritically support the campaign to remove the 'gay rights' movement on the prohibition of same-sex marriage, alright...

These are both cases of legalised discrimination, even if the people being discriminated against happen to be US soldiers - supporting the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder has no silver lining, imperialist scum or not.

[Angry Young Man]

Replacing the 10,000 homosexual soldiers forced to leave the US army in the last 10 years has cost $200m (£106m), according to a report released last year by the US Government Accountability Office.

Morons. THIS is the crux of how capitalism fails: creating animosity and division. These will always eventually create a movement. Take for example the Black rights movement. Before it would have been unheard of to have blacks with "equal" rights. This created a movement that the ruling class could only delay, not eliminate. I believe that revolution in the Western world will begin once these animosities are conciliated. THEN, the people will unite.
Anyway, as a gay as well as registered disabled, this will speed up historical materialism because the gays will cry out for equality, and a revolutionary movement will offer us that.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by TragicClown@Jun 21 2006, 02:51 PM
(obviously i think the Cuban and Venezuelan armies shouldn't discriminate against gays though :-p)

Wasn't there a thing about Castro's treatmen of gays?

[TC]

Originally posted by Black Dagger@Jun 21 2006, 06:45 PM


Yes it's great that LESS people will be in the army, but promoting homophobia (classfying homosexuality as a mental disorder, insta-discharging anyone who is 'revealed' to be gay etc is not progressive regardless of the context.

And whats wrong with "insta-dischaging anyone who is 'revealed' to be gay?" I'd rather there be more arbitrary and unreasonable justifications for them to 'insta-discharge' useful people, that means fewer people to kill Iraqis. It would be better if they were so paranoid and homophobic they discharged a ton of straight soldiers on suspicion as well, the more the better!

Any stupid policies which make the US army less efficent should be seen as a good thing by anti-imperialist leftists.

The army's policies on queer soldiers perpetuate the homophobic attitudes of hetero soldiers and contribute to a social culture of homophobia

Hmm, now a culture of homophobia sounds like a misurable thing to have to work and live in, so i'm quite pleased that US soldiers have to deal with it, hopefully it will hurt their morale and reduce their re-enlistment numbers, increase desertion, and reduce their effectiveness. Its good that they have a sexist culture too, hopefully that would scare off female recruits and rightfully give the ones who do join a misurable time, again increasing desertion, reducing re-enlistment and reducing effectiveness...and besides its probably harmful to straight male soldiers as well. If only they could be really racist too, that would be useful.

In medieval europe, the military was so classist that only wealthy people faught in wars...it would be excellent if that was the case today, they'd never be able to go to war.

Ideally, if i got to write the enterence requirements for US soldiers, i'd want them to only let in straight, anglo-saxon, male, middle aged evangelical christians making more than $300,000 a year, registered Republican Party voters...that would both make the army really struggling for recruits, and it would help society demographically in general by shipping out lots of misurable people who are anti-social anyways!

and these are people who will eventually be living back in US society.

Well, we can only hope they'll never make it back, but if they unfortunetly do, the more out of step they are with the general culture the more isolated they'll be socially and politically...which is a good thing.

That you are "unconcerned" about this shows a disturbing lack of forethought, do you think that such classifications and policies have no effect on broader views? That is incredibly naive.

You're assuming that the existance of this *very useful* will have negative consequences outside of the essentially insular culture of the military. This is after all, a professional mlitary its not conscripts who are integrated into society in general.

The immediate effects is that they're dismissing a ton of effective soldiers when they're struggling to meet recruitment requirements, and they'll especially badly hurt in technical and specialist areas which are even harder to replace. This is a good thing.

The indirect effects would be speculative at best. If anything, i would think that obviously reactionary policies on the part of the US military would increase the amount of resentment that general society feels towards it, which is also a good thing.

But yet you uncritically support the campaign to remove the 'gay rights' movement on the prohibition of same-sex marriage, alright...

Thats right because i think gay people have a right to have their long term relationships socially recognized under an equal standard as straight people's, which in current society means marriage. On the other hand, i don't think that gay people have the right to murder and toture Iraqis, which is essentially what wanting to include gays in the army comes down to. We shouldnt' be trying to broaden participation in American atrocities.

These are both cases of legalised discrimination, even if the people being discriminated against happen to be US soldiers - supporting the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder has no silver lining, imperialist scum or not.

I can't think of anyone better to discriminate against than US soldiers, except maybe serial killers and Nazis. The only people who suffer are US soldiers, gay and straight, the US army, and potential US military recruits, in otherwords, people who ought to suffer.


10,000 US troops so far have been discharged since the Clinton don't ask don't tell policy was implemented, according to the Government Accountability Office, which also estimated the money lost in training these people snce 93' has amounted to 191 million dollars lost...thats almost half as many soldiers as total american casulities in Iraq, and more than desertions. How excellent is this, its like "don't ask don't tell" enflicts 50% as much damage as the Iraqi insurgency! This is at a time when the US army is has been missing its recruitment goals by around 40% each month.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGGNCR4QO1.DTL

In the words of Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/...ain529418.shtml
"It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military proficiency issues - they're throwing out good, quality people,"

Lets not do them any favors!

Wasn't there a thing about Castro's treatmen of gays

Uh, no, Fidel Castro is firmly in support of gay rights and against any homophobia or discrimination...naturally theres some degree of homophobia in Cuban society just like most other places but Castro is not a part of that.

[TC]

Originally posted by Black Dagger@Jun 21 2006, 06:45 PM


Yes it's great that LESS people will be in the army, but promoting homophobia (classfying homosexuality as a mental disorder, insta-discharging anyone who is 'revealed' to be gay etc is not progressive regardless of the context.

And whats wrong with "insta-dischaging anyone who is 'revealed' to be gay?" I'd rather there be more arbitrary and unreasonable justifications for them to 'insta-discharge' useful people, that means fewer people to kill Iraqis. It would be better if they were so paranoid and homophobic they discharged a ton of straight soldiers on suspicion as well, the more the better!

Any stupid policies which make the US army less efficent should be seen as a good thing by anti-imperialist leftists.

The army's policies on queer soldiers perpetuate the homophobic attitudes of hetero soldiers and contribute to a social culture of homophobia

Hmm, now a culture of homophobia sounds like a misurable thing to have to work and live in, so i'm quite pleased that US soldiers have to deal with it, hopefully it will hurt their morale and reduce their re-enlistment numbers, increase desertion, and reduce their effectiveness. Its good that they have a sexist culture too, hopefully that would scare off female recruits and rightfully give the ones who do join a misurable time, again increasing desertion, reducing re-enlistment and reducing effectiveness...and besides its probably harmful to straight male soldiers as well. If only they could be really racist too, that would be useful.

In medieval europe, the military was so classist that only wealthy people faught in wars...it would be excellent if that was the case today, they'd never be able to go to war.

Ideally, if i got to write the enterence requirements for US soldiers, i'd want them to only let in straight, anglo-saxon, male, middle aged evangelical christians making more than $300,000 a year, registered Republican Party voters...that would both make the army really struggling for recruits, and it would help society demographically in general by shipping out lots of misurable people who are anti-social anyways!

and these are people who will eventually be living back in US society.

Well, we can only hope they'll never make it back, but if they unfortunetly do, the more out of step they are with the general culture the more isolated they'll be socially and politically...which is a good thing.

That you are "unconcerned" about this shows a disturbing lack of forethought, do you think that such classifications and policies have no effect on broader views? That is incredibly naive.

You're assuming that the existance of this *very useful* will have negative consequences outside of the essentially insular culture of the military. This is after all, a professional mlitary its not conscripts who are integrated into society in general.

The immediate effects is that they're dismissing a ton of effective soldiers when they're struggling to meet recruitment requirements, and they'll especially badly hurt in technical and specialist areas which are even harder to replace. This is a good thing.

The indirect effects would be speculative at best. If anything, i would think that obviously reactionary policies on the part of the US military would increase the amount of resentment that general society feels towards it, which is also a good thing.

But yet you uncritically support the campaign to remove the 'gay rights' movement on the prohibition of same-sex marriage, alright...

Thats right because i think gay people have a right to have their long term relationships socially recognized under an equal standard as straight people's, which in current society means marriage. On the other hand, i don't think that gay people have the right to murder and toture Iraqis, which is essentially what wanting to include gays in the army comes down to. We shouldnt' be trying to broaden participation in American atrocities.

These are both cases of legalised discrimination, even if the people being discriminated against happen to be US soldiers - supporting the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder has no silver lining, imperialist scum or not.

I can't think of anyone better to discriminate against than US soldiers, except maybe serial killers and Nazis. The only people who suffer are US soldiers, gay and straight, the US army, and potential US military recruits, in otherwords, people who ought to suffer.


10,000 US troops so far have been discharged since the Clinton don't ask don't tell policy was implemented, according to the Government Accountability Office, which also estimated the money lost in training these people snce 93' has amounted to 191 million dollars lost...thats almost half as many soldiers as total american casulities in Iraq, and more than desertions. How excellent is this, its like "don't ask don't tell" enflicts 50% as much damage as the Iraqi insurgency! This is at a time when the US army is has been missing its recruitment goals by around 40% each month.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGGNCR4QO1.DTL

In the words of Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/...ain529418.shtml
"It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military proficiency issues - they're throwing out good, quality people,"

Lets not do them any favors!

Wasn't there a thing about Castro's treatmen of gays

Uh, no, Fidel Castro is firmly in support of gay rights and against any homophobia or discrimination...naturally theres some degree of homophobia in Cuban society just like most other places but Castro is not a part of that.

[TC]

Originally posted by Black Dagger@Jun 21 2006, 06:45 PM


Yes it's great that LESS people will be in the army, but promoting homophobia (classfying homosexuality as a mental disorder, insta-discharging anyone who is 'revealed' to be gay etc is not progressive regardless of the context.

And whats wrong with "insta-dischaging anyone who is 'revealed' to be gay?" I'd rather there be more arbitrary and unreasonable justifications for them to 'insta-discharge' useful people, that means fewer people to kill Iraqis. It would be better if they were so paranoid and homophobic they discharged a ton of straight soldiers on suspicion as well, the more the better!

Any stupid policies which make the US army less efficent should be seen as a good thing by anti-imperialist leftists.

The army's policies on queer soldiers perpetuate the homophobic attitudes of hetero soldiers and contribute to a social culture of homophobia

Hmm, now a culture of homophobia sounds like a misurable thing to have to work and live in, so i'm quite pleased that US soldiers have to deal with it, hopefully it will hurt their morale and reduce their re-enlistment numbers, increase desertion, and reduce their effectiveness. Its good that they have a sexist culture too, hopefully that would scare off female recruits and rightfully give the ones who do join a misurable time, again increasing desertion, reducing re-enlistment and reducing effectiveness...and besides its probably harmful to straight male soldiers as well. If only they could be really racist too, that would be useful.

In medieval europe, the military was so classist that only wealthy people faught in wars...it would be excellent if that was the case today, they'd never be able to go to war.

Ideally, if i got to write the enterence requirements for US soldiers, i'd want them to only let in straight, anglo-saxon, male, middle aged evangelical christians making more than $300,000 a year, registered Republican Party voters...that would both make the army really struggling for recruits, and it would help society demographically in general by shipping out lots of misurable people who are anti-social anyways!

and these are people who will eventually be living back in US society.

Well, we can only hope they'll never make it back, but if they unfortunetly do, the more out of step they are with the general culture the more isolated they'll be socially and politically...which is a good thing.

That you are "unconcerned" about this shows a disturbing lack of forethought, do you think that such classifications and policies have no effect on broader views? That is incredibly naive.

You're assuming that the existance of this *very useful* will have negative consequences outside of the essentially insular culture of the military. This is after all, a professional mlitary its not conscripts who are integrated into society in general.

The immediate effects is that they're dismissing a ton of effective soldiers when they're struggling to meet recruitment requirements, and they'll especially badly hurt in technical and specialist areas which are even harder to replace. This is a good thing.

The indirect effects would be speculative at best. If anything, i would think that obviously reactionary policies on the part of the US military would increase the amount of resentment that general society feels towards it, which is also a good thing.

But yet you uncritically support the campaign to remove the 'gay rights' movement on the prohibition of same-sex marriage, alright...

Thats right because i think gay people have a right to have their long term relationships socially recognized under an equal standard as straight people's, which in current society means marriage. On the other hand, i don't think that gay people have the right to murder and toture Iraqis, which is essentially what wanting to include gays in the army comes down to. We shouldnt' be trying to broaden participation in American atrocities.

These are both cases of legalised discrimination, even if the people being discriminated against happen to be US soldiers - supporting the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder has no silver lining, imperialist scum or not.

I can't think of anyone better to discriminate against than US soldiers, except maybe serial killers and Nazis. The only people who suffer are US soldiers, gay and straight, the US army, and potential US military recruits, in otherwords, people who ought to suffer.


10,000 US troops so far have been discharged since the Clinton don't ask don't tell policy was implemented, according to the Government Accountability Office, which also estimated the money lost in training these people snce 93' has amounted to 191 million dollars lost...thats almost half as many soldiers as total american casulities in Iraq, and more than desertions. How excellent is this, its like "don't ask don't tell" enflicts 50% as much damage as the Iraqi insurgency! This is at a time when the US army is has been missing its recruitment goals by around 40% each month.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGGNCR4QO1.DTL

In the words of Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/...ain529418.shtml
"It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military proficiency issues - they're throwing out good, quality people,"

Lets not do them any favors!

Wasn't there a thing about Castro's treatmen of gays

Uh, no, Fidel Castro is firmly in support of gay rights and against any homophobia or discrimination...naturally theres some degree of homophobia in Cuban society just like most other places but Castro is not a part of that.

[guerillablack]

i wish whenever there is discussion on homosexuality people who stop comparing the gay rights movement to the black power movement/civil rights.

[guerillablack]

i wish whenever there is discussion on homosexuality people who stop comparing the gay rights movement to the black power movement/civil rights.

[guerillablack]

i wish whenever there is discussion on homosexuality people who stop comparing the gay rights movement to the black power movement/civil rights.

[LSD]

And why's that?

A civil rights struggle is a civil rights struggle and the plight of homosxuals is just as real as the plight of racial minorities or women.

[LSD]

And why's that?

A civil rights struggle is a civil rights struggle and the plight of homosxuals is just as real as the plight of racial minorities or women.

[LSD]

And why's that?

A civil rights struggle is a civil rights struggle and the plight of homosxuals is just as real as the plight of racial minorities or women.

[TC]

i wish whenever there is discussion on homosexuality people who stop comparing the gay rights movement to the black power movement/civil rights.

And why's that?

A civil rights struggle is a civil rights struggle and the plight of homosxuals is just as real as the plight of racial minorities or women.

Well, while i think it would have been reasonable to argue that homosexuals and women and racial minorities were perhaps, roughly equally oppressed in say the 1930-50s, or if anything, it was perhaps worse for women and gays than for straight male racial minorities, (given the relative level of legally sanctioned and socially acceptable persecution of gays, and the extreme economic disadvantage of women and the social acceptability of women's inferior status)...

...however i don't think that case could be made today, women and gays have made much more progress than blacks in terms of reducing oppression...this isn't because the women's rights movement and gay rights movement was somehow more effective than the black civil rights movement but rather the fact that women and gays are born to all classes in the same proportions, whereas blacks are disproportionately born in lower classes, so wealth reproduces itself in a way that reinforces the repression of blacks but not women and gays.


I don't think it would be reasonable to claim that, on average, at least in the cities, white women and white gays are as discriminated against as blacks, given that the economic situation is now reversed, and blacks are far more likely to face both state and social violence and repression (although, violence against white women and hate crimes against white gays are certaintly far more prominant in the media, this is a reflection of who society values not a reflection of the statistics).

Of course discrimination and prejudice against gays is *real*, but its not as intense i think as discrimination and institutional oppression against blacks because the economics don't support it as much.

[TC]

i wish whenever there is discussion on homosexuality people who stop comparing the gay rights movement to the black power movement/civil rights.

And why's that?

A civil rights struggle is a civil rights struggle and the plight of homosxuals is just as real as the plight of racial minorities or women.

Well, while i think it would have been reasonable to argue that homosexuals and women and racial minorities were perhaps, roughly equally oppressed in say the 1930-50s, or if anything, it was perhaps worse for women and gays than for straight male racial minorities, (given the relative level of legally sanctioned and socially acceptable persecution of gays, and the extreme economic disadvantage of women and the social acceptability of women's inferior status)...

...however i don't think that case could be made today, women and gays have made much more progress than blacks in terms of reducing oppression...this isn't because the women's rights movement and gay rights movement was somehow more effective than the black civil rights movement but rather the fact that women and gays are born to all classes in the same proportions, whereas blacks are disproportionately born in lower classes, so wealth reproduces itself in a way that reinforces the repression of blacks but not women and gays.


I don't think it would be reasonable to claim that, on average, at least in the cities, white women and white gays are as discriminated against as blacks, given that the economic situation is now reversed, and blacks are far more likely to face both state and social violence and repression (although, violence against white women and hate crimes against white gays are certaintly far more prominant in the media, this is a reflection of who society values not a reflection of the statistics).

Of course discrimination and prejudice against gays is *real*, but its not as intense i think as discrimination and institutional oppression against blacks because the economics don't support it as much.

[TC]

i wish whenever there is discussion on homosexuality people who stop comparing the gay rights movement to the black power movement/civil rights.

And why's that?

A civil rights struggle is a civil rights struggle and the plight of homosxuals is just as real as the plight of racial minorities or women.

Well, while i think it would have been reasonable to argue that homosexuals and women and racial minorities were perhaps, roughly equally oppressed in say the 1930-50s, or if anything, it was perhaps worse for women and gays than for straight male racial minorities, (given the relative level of legally sanctioned and socially acceptable persecution of gays, and the extreme economic disadvantage of women and the social acceptability of women's inferior status)...

...however i don't think that case could be made today, women and gays have made much more progress than blacks in terms of reducing oppression...this isn't because the women's rights movement and gay rights movement was somehow more effective than the black civil rights movement but rather the fact that women and gays are born to all classes in the same proportions, whereas blacks are disproportionately born in lower classes, so wealth reproduces itself in a way that reinforces the repression of blacks but not women and gays.


I don't think it would be reasonable to claim that, on average, at least in the cities, white women and white gays are as discriminated against as blacks, given that the economic situation is now reversed, and blacks are far more likely to face both state and social violence and repression (although, violence against white women and hate crimes against white gays are certaintly far more prominant in the media, this is a reflection of who society values not a reflection of the statistics).

Of course discrimination and prejudice against gays is *real*, but its not as intense i think as discrimination and institutional oppression against blacks because the economics don't support it as much.

[RevMARKSman]

Ah well...You know we need to fight this rampant homophobia...I'm not surprised.
Parody: http://whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

Now we need the APA to stop listing "Gender Identity Disorder" as a mental disorder and instead as a physical development problem.

[RevMARKSman]

Ah well...You know we need to fight this rampant homophobia...I'm not surprised.
Parody: http://whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

Now we need the APA to stop listing "Gender Identity Disorder" as a mental disorder and instead as a physical development problem.

[RevMARKSman]

Ah well...You know we need to fight this rampant homophobia...I'm not surprised.
Parody: http://whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

Now we need the APA to stop listing "Gender Identity Disorder" as a mental disorder and instead as a physical development problem.