LGBTQIA+ Is All About Serving the Progressive Democrat Party

Virginia’s Gov. Glenn Youngkin hosted a Virginia pride reception, angering LGBTQ woke-progressive-Democrat groups who boycotted because he’s, you know, a Republican.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/youngkin-pride-events-angering-lgbtq-groups

>>Last week, Youngkin also traveled to Virginia Beach to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative LGBTQ group.
“The Democrat Party and the people on the left, the left-leaning organizations, they all lambaste Republicans for not embracing the gay community. And then when one does, they lambaste, and they lose their minds,” Casey Flores, president of the group’s new Richmond chapter, told WRC-TV.
Meanwhile, more liberal LGBTQ groups in Virginia issued press releases announcing that they would not attend the Pride month reception at the Virginia Capitol.<<

History, Real and Revised

In her New York Times review, Alexandra Jacobs complains, “This is overwhelmingly a gallery of the white male gaytriarchy, with lesbians and people of color mostly on the sidelines.”

Because gay (mostly white) men who were the primary targets of the purge of federal employees during that time don’t deserve to have their history told. Is that clear enough?

More. Rob Wolfe complains in the Washington Monthly that Kirchick is insufficiently intersectional. But in criticizing Kirchick’s views against making everything about the entire progressive agenda, he shows why Kirchick has gotten it right. Wolfe writes:

Kirchick has written a comprehensive and deeply humane work of history, but he doesn’t extend this question to the present day. His other writings suggest, unfortunately, that this may be because he lacks the same compassion for some of today’s marginalized groups. In a 2019 Atlantic article titled “The Struggle for Gay Rights Is Over,” Kirchick proclaimed that America is becoming a “post-gay country,” where same-sex marriage is legal, an “out” gay man can be a credible presidential candidate, and 70 percent of Americans say homosexuality should be accepted. With so many victories, Kirchick accuses present-day activists of “mission creep”—of pushing forward with largely irrelevant struggles, refusing to accept that they have already won. He writes, “For many of those whose political identities have been shaped by crusades against government discrimination and pervasive societal ignorance, victimhood is too essential an identity to be so easily discarded.”

Exactly.

Yes, It’s Pride Month

More. Photos from a “child friendly” drag show hosted at a Dallas gay bar. Does this look like a healthy experience for the kids? (The neon sign reads “It’s Not Gonna Lick Itself”).

More.A “family friendly” drag show? https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1537895794400821250.

Urvashi Vaid, Reconsidered

The WaPo’s obit for former (then) NGLTF leader Urvashi Vaid. The paper’s obits for conservatives tend to include critical points, but none in this hagiography. Vaid, however, was pretty vicious toward gay conservatives, moderates, libertarians or anyone who disagreed with her.

In her book Virtual Equality, she complained, “Since I left [NGLTF], conservative columnists like Paul Varnell, Bruce Bawer, and Stephen Miller have continued to attack me personally, even though they have never spoken with me, worked with me, or talked to many of the people I have worked with.”

I had, in fact, spoken to her—we had been on a panel together at an AIDS-era conference. But really, who thinks you have to speak to a public figure before criticizing them based on their public acts and writings? Certainly not Vaid when she lashed out at others.

In an article titled “The Status Quo of the Status Queer” in Gay Community News, Vaid called for “a full-scale frontal assault” against “the coming of a racist, sexist gay and lesbian Right.” I criticized her for that in Christopher Street, which may be what got me into her book.

Vaid was at best a lukewarm and late-to-the-game supporter of same-sex marriage and (especially) gays in the military, getting onboard when it became untenable not to do so. These were, after all, initially seen as assimilationist goals, championed by gay and lesbian conservatives and moderates and dismissed by radicals.

To her credit, she was involved in AIDS activism and lobbying for increased AIDS funding, as the obit highlights, but NGLTF was a secondary player while ACT-UP and its offshoots were the power drivers.

Vaid’s focus was on what we now call intersectional activism, and forming a broad coalition of leftwing progressives for economic and societal transformation. She once described her politics as “anarcho-syndicalist,” a strand of utopian Marxism.

As for gay and lesbian legal equality, credit groups like the early HRC (before it became a Democratic front group), Freedom to Marry and Lambda Legal, along with Log Cabin Republicans and others, for moving the needle forward, not Vaid.



The Left’s Disinformation Explosion Over the Alito Draft

Progressives are having a field day claiming that Justice Alito’s draft abortion opinion, which would overturn Roe v. Wade, will also lead to overturning the constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the Obergefell decision. But if you read the decision, Alito takes pains to say that it won’t. Some excerpts:

Page 5:

>>Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being”<<

Page 62:

>>Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 26 (citing Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. 8. 644 (2015); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2008); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965)). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[abortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U.S, at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. 8., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.<<

Yet this is what we’re seeing throughout the progressive press:

Draft Roe v. Wade ruling sends panic through LGBTQ community: ‘They’re coming for us next’

Gay marriage, other rights at risk after U.S. Supreme Court abortion move

From LGBTQ rights to interracial marriage, abortion ruling could be map for GOP’s next push

Plaintiff in landmark same-sex marriage case worries marriage equality is at risk if Roe falls

And on and on. Pure fear porn meant to galvanize the knee-jerk base.

More:

Can Transpeople Recapture the Trans Movement from Gender Radicals?

Rauch also writes:

Telling tomboyish girls or effeminate boys that they should identify as the opposite sex embraces all the hoary gender stereotypes that made generations of gay and lesbian people (and many straight people) miserable. Worse, it can cater to homophobic pressures not to be gay. (Evidence in this domain is thin, but one study found that almost a fourth of gender detransitioners cited homophobia or difficulty accepting themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual as a reason for transitioning.)

Insisting that it’s always hateful to draw distinctions based on biological sex in sports, prisons, and medical training strikes most of the public as nutty, unfair, and dangerous. The backlash that is forming will harm trans people, gay and lesbian people (who are already caught in the undertow), and everyone who hopes for candor and compromise. Radicalism makes the only path forward—social negotiation tailored to diverse situations—unattainable.