6 Comments for “A Call for LGB to ‘Divorce’ TQ+ and End an Abusive Relationship”
posted by Edward TJ Brown on
So, one transgender person was a bully, and now all transgender people should be tossed under the bus?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let’s get rid of the L and B while we are at it.
posted by Edward TJ Brown on
My word!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“My word!”
Well, think about it, Edward, and think about it from a conservative homosexual perspective.
What are the primary complaints of conservative homosexuals as expressed in this forum? Intersectionality and a drift away from “pure” homosexuals in favor of transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and others.
Where did intersectionality rear its head in the gay rights movement?
Back in the day, the Mattachine Society (representing male homosexuals) and the Daughters of Bilitis (representing female homosexuals) were separate organizations, each with its own perspective and agenda.
After Stonewall new, more radical organizations rose up, and female homosexuals demanded to be represented in those organizations on an equal footing with male homosexuals.
That was the beginning of intersectionality in the “gay rights” movement, as female homosexuals (increasingly identified as “Lesbians”) aligned with the feminist movement and dragged the gay rights movement along with it. The gay rights movement, accordingly, lost its laser focus on issues important to male homosexuals, and over time, other issues (e.g. women’s rights, reproductive rights and all the rest slowly infiltrated the gay rights movement).
Look, next, at the development of the gay rights movement in to a “big tent” movement, bringing in transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and others into the movement?
That, I believe, started with inclusion of bisexuals (or, as my former sister-in-law used to call them, not affectionately, “bicycles”) into the gay rights movement. Bisexual issues are not identical, by any means, with issues important to “pure” homosexuals, and opened the door to including transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and others into the gay rights movement.
That’s fine with those of us who understand intersectionality and who see the similarity of our long struggle with the struggles of similarly situated sexual minorities for equal rights as citizens. It is not, however, fine with conservative homosexuals, as this forum bears witness.
So my observation — not entirely tongue in cheek — was really a question for conservative homosexuals. If “T” (not to mention “QIA+”) needs to be removed from the gay rights movement, why not “L” and “B” as well?
posted by Jim Michaud on
Tom, I agree with just about everything that you’ve said.
There is however, one particular issue that grinds my gears: the insistence by trans activists that Stonewall was started by transwomen of color. Nope. Sorry. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera have set the record straight in separate interviews that they weren’t there at the riot’s start, but came in soon after. Look at any photos available during the riots and what’s the majority that you see-yep, white men. To you, it may not matter much. But for me (and countless others), the distortion of the Stonewall narrative is jarring.
And now to the story in the article at hand. Maybe the activists had no idea who Fred Sargeant is or his key role in the riots. But it was pretty bad optics to have a 74 year old man assaulted like that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Look at any photos available during the riots and what’s the majority that you see-yep, white men. To you, it may not matter much.”
That’s true.
Stonewall was a mob bar frequented by white homosexual men. The bar was not frequented by homosexual women for the most part. The mob shook down “respectable” patrons with regularity, and “cash transactions” were a common experience. The bar, in short, was a sleeze operation catering to a subset of white male homosexuals, not the most respectable among us. A significant number of patrons appear to have been hustlers, and, of course, the drag queens, white male homosexuals as I understand it, were there. I doubt that a single member of the Mattachine Society, for example, was on the premises when the raid took place. So that is the background.
In the immediate aftermath of the raid, through the night and into the next day, the “Stonewall Riots” took place. The riots began, as I understand it from reading accounts**, as word spread through the immediate and adjoining neighborhoods, largely white, and homosexual men, mostly young, were the ones who hit the street. As you note, if you look at the photos from the night of the raid and the day or two following, you see few women, and almost no middle-aged men.
In the days and weeks following the riots, the modern gay rights movement began to form, and the streets were alive with male and female homosexuals, although, again, the demonstrators were predominantly young, white male homosexuals. You can almost date photos of the period day by day by (1) the emergence of signs, and (2) the number and prominence of female homosexuals.
The pattern doesn’t surprise me. Men of my age were raised to be aggressive and to fight from the time we were boys. It makes sense to me that it was young men (men now 70-ish or more) were the bulk of the initial rioters, and that female homosexuals and others came to the protests over the next days and weeks.
I don’t think that this suggests that young, white men initiated the gay rights movement. Older men, more respectable, carried the movement while we largely ignored it. Those men were shoved aside as the movement became younger and more radical. White men of my age, at that time, had way too high an opinion of ourselves and discounted our parents, the men and women who endured the depression and won World War II. Drawing the conclusion that the gay rights movement was the work of our generation, and particularly those of us who were privileged by both race and education, is hubris.
As for “the insistence by trans activists that Stonewall was started by transwomen of color”, let it go. Claims are claims, and facts are facts. No need to let idiots live in your head rent free.
============
** I was in the military at the time, half a world away, and didn’t even hear about Stonewall until I was back in the country many months later. By the time I became aware of the “gay rights” movement, the movement had taken shape.
6 Comments for “A Call for LGB to ‘Divorce’ TQ+ and End an Abusive Relationship”
posted by Edward TJ Brown on
So, one transgender person was a bully, and now all transgender people should be tossed under the bus?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let’s get rid of the L and B while we are at it.
posted by Edward TJ Brown on
My word!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“My word!”
Well, think about it, Edward, and think about it from a conservative homosexual perspective.
What are the primary complaints of conservative homosexuals as expressed in this forum? Intersectionality and a drift away from “pure” homosexuals in favor of transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and others.
Where did intersectionality rear its head in the gay rights movement?
Back in the day, the Mattachine Society (representing male homosexuals) and the Daughters of Bilitis (representing female homosexuals) were separate organizations, each with its own perspective and agenda.
After Stonewall new, more radical organizations rose up, and female homosexuals demanded to be represented in those organizations on an equal footing with male homosexuals.
That was the beginning of intersectionality in the “gay rights” movement, as female homosexuals (increasingly identified as “Lesbians”) aligned with the feminist movement and dragged the gay rights movement along with it. The gay rights movement, accordingly, lost its laser focus on issues important to male homosexuals, and over time, other issues (e.g. women’s rights, reproductive rights and all the rest slowly infiltrated the gay rights movement).
Look, next, at the development of the gay rights movement in to a “big tent” movement, bringing in transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and others into the movement?
That, I believe, started with inclusion of bisexuals (or, as my former sister-in-law used to call them, not affectionately, “bicycles”) into the gay rights movement. Bisexual issues are not identical, by any means, with issues important to “pure” homosexuals, and opened the door to including transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and others into the gay rights movement.
That’s fine with those of us who understand intersectionality and who see the similarity of our long struggle with the struggles of similarly situated sexual minorities for equal rights as citizens. It is not, however, fine with conservative homosexuals, as this forum bears witness.
So my observation — not entirely tongue in cheek — was really a question for conservative homosexuals. If “T” (not to mention “QIA+”) needs to be removed from the gay rights movement, why not “L” and “B” as well?
posted by Jim Michaud on
Tom, I agree with just about everything that you’ve said.
There is however, one particular issue that grinds my gears: the insistence by trans activists that Stonewall was started by transwomen of color. Nope. Sorry. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera have set the record straight in separate interviews that they weren’t there at the riot’s start, but came in soon after. Look at any photos available during the riots and what’s the majority that you see-yep, white men. To you, it may not matter much. But for me (and countless others), the distortion of the Stonewall narrative is jarring.
And now to the story in the article at hand. Maybe the activists had no idea who Fred Sargeant is or his key role in the riots. But it was pretty bad optics to have a 74 year old man assaulted like that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Look at any photos available during the riots and what’s the majority that you see-yep, white men. To you, it may not matter much.”
That’s true.
Stonewall was a mob bar frequented by white homosexual men. The bar was not frequented by homosexual women for the most part. The mob shook down “respectable” patrons with regularity, and “cash transactions” were a common experience. The bar, in short, was a sleeze operation catering to a subset of white male homosexuals, not the most respectable among us. A significant number of patrons appear to have been hustlers, and, of course, the drag queens, white male homosexuals as I understand it, were there. I doubt that a single member of the Mattachine Society, for example, was on the premises when the raid took place. So that is the background.
In the immediate aftermath of the raid, through the night and into the next day, the “Stonewall Riots” took place. The riots began, as I understand it from reading accounts**, as word spread through the immediate and adjoining neighborhoods, largely white, and homosexual men, mostly young, were the ones who hit the street. As you note, if you look at the photos from the night of the raid and the day or two following, you see few women, and almost no middle-aged men.
In the days and weeks following the riots, the modern gay rights movement began to form, and the streets were alive with male and female homosexuals, although, again, the demonstrators were predominantly young, white male homosexuals. You can almost date photos of the period day by day by (1) the emergence of signs, and (2) the number and prominence of female homosexuals.
The pattern doesn’t surprise me. Men of my age were raised to be aggressive and to fight from the time we were boys. It makes sense to me that it was young men (men now 70-ish or more) were the bulk of the initial rioters, and that female homosexuals and others came to the protests over the next days and weeks.
I don’t think that this suggests that young, white men initiated the gay rights movement. Older men, more respectable, carried the movement while we largely ignored it. Those men were shoved aside as the movement became younger and more radical. White men of my age, at that time, had way too high an opinion of ourselves and discounted our parents, the men and women who endured the depression and won World War II. Drawing the conclusion that the gay rights movement was the work of our generation, and particularly those of us who were privileged by both race and education, is hubris.
As for “the insistence by trans activists that Stonewall was started by transwomen of color”, let it go. Claims are claims, and facts are facts. No need to let idiots live in your head rent free.
============
** I was in the military at the time, half a world away, and didn’t even hear about Stonewall until I was back in the country many months later. By the time I became aware of the “gay rights” movement, the movement had taken shape.