Thread Killer

[Ultimate Paragon]

I don't think he's trying to say that there were *no* trans people at Stonewall, more that they weren't in the majority. Granted, the term "transgender Stonewall" is pretty ambiguous, but I think it would be absolutely insane to say that no trans person was there at all.

Granted, I still don't get why it's such a big deal to argue about whether or not trans or gay people were more of the 'force' behind Stonewall. Both were present there, and both were harmed in the raid. Saying 'we were hurt more than you' or 'we did more at the riots than you' is just denigrating to both groups and what they went through.

Note: I'm talking more about people who argue over the events themselves, as opposed to the movie. I've had it heard from both gay and trans individuals that Stonewall needs to be 'claimed' by one or the other, and really, it's...tiring. I'd just like it to be seen for what it was - a horrible event which brought about a movement which is slowly, but surely, making things better for groups who were once outcast and oppressed. You don't have to erase what other people did for it to be important to you and yours.

Forgive me for the rant. This is just a thing that I've been hearing a lot about since the movie became a thing, and it's gotten mildly frustrating.

I'd like to clarify what I mean: of course trans* people and PoC were involved in the Stonewall Riots.  However, we don't know how big of a role they played.  Eyewitness accounts are contradictory, and we have little footage of the event.

Selective amnesia. History is pretty clear that it was transwomen and drag queens being arrested, and that it was a transwoman of color that threw the first brick. In fact, white, gay men largely got to go home untouched.

What has happened since is a collaborative effort by mainstream LGb groups to erase the trans-contribution to Stonewall. During the 70's, 80's, 90's, and early 2000's, gay groups sought to gain civil rights for gays and lesbians, often by using transsexuals as a bargaining chip. They could compromise and exclude us, so as to get their civil rights. Or worse, they could demonize us to make themselves appear more "normal." In fact, one of the biggest legal scholars in gay law, Dale Carpenter, often operated in this manner--in particular in his amicus for Lawrence.

And yes, Stonewall wasn't a "trans-event" -- transgender people make up a very tiny part of the population, more so then when being out was a  likely death sentence. But, fact is, white, gay men were not the victims of the police raid: the police largely sought to arrest people caught in the act of gay-sex (rare) or in "drag" as this evidence sufficed for homosexual conduct back then. Gay men had no skin in the game other then a bar they visited--transsexuals, cross-dressers, and drag queens were the ones being arrested and beaten at the police station. There is a reason that some of the biggest names to come out of Stonewall are Sylvia Rivera, Marsha Johnson, and Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, or even Stormé DeLarverie and Jean O'Leary and not, Danny Winters.

You can only push someone so much before they fight back. Historically, it is those with the most to gain and the least to lose who fight back first (lesbians and transgender people of color) and not those with the most to lose and least to gain (white, gay, fit men as seen in Stonewall). As a transwoman, I feel that excluding Sylvia Rivera and reducing Marsha Johnson's role in the event is like trying to portray a historical film about the underground railroad while excluding Harriett Tubman, or worse, making her a white man named Danny Winters.

EDIT: I originally brainfarted and wrote Rita Brown as coming from Stonewall when in fact I intended O'Leary (a transphobic lesbian, but a lesbian nontheless).

I'm not denying the fact that trans people and drag queens were victimized, nor am I intending to downplay their role.  They were important to Stonewall.  But here's the question: how important were they?  Answer: we don't know, but they may not have been as important as is claimed.

There are numerous accounts describing Stonewall as a hangout for middle-class gay men.  And it's funny you mention Sylvia Rivera, because here's what she told Eric Marcus for his book Making History:

The Stonewall wasn't a bar for drag queens.  Everybody keeps saying it was. ... If you were a drag queen, you could get into the Stonewall if they knew you.  And only a certain number of drag queens were allowed into the Stonewall at that time.

Straight from the horse's mouth, testimony that drag queens only made up a tiny minority of Stonewall's patrons.

In fairness, there are doubts that could be raised about the accounts of Stonewall as a haven for white gay men, especially considering many of them only arose after the fact.  And Ms. Rivera could very well have been misremembering.  However, that doesn't mean we should dismiss them entirely.

Your grievances when it comes to the erasure of important figures in the riots are completely legitimate.  But we have to consider the actual historical evidence.  Were transgender people and drag queens important in Stonewall?  Of course.  How important were they?  That's less clear.

[davedan]

What was the point of your post if not to downplay the role transpeople played in the event?

[Ultimate Paragon]

What was the point of your post if not to downplay the role transpeople played in the event?

Pointing out the ambiguities.

[Ironchew]

This is just an academic exercise in pointing out unclear historical footnotes.

Sure, it looks like UP's muddying the waters to dismiss a narrative that makes him uncomfortable, but has he ever done that before? I trust him.

[Ultimate Paragon]

This is just an academic exercise in pointing out unclear historical footnotes.

Sure, it looks like UP's muddying the waters to dismiss a narrative that makes him uncomfortable, but has he ever done that before? I trust him.

I'm not "dismissing" it, merely questioning it.

[davedan]

So this is one of those things where you say something, something not correct which is reasonably contentious, which could only really have one purpose. But then someone (in this case the Royal Feminine One) points out you're wrong you backtrack and then finally resort to "well it's ambiguous/ historically controversial"...

But it's to point out ambiguities? You weren't particularly ambiguous in your first post. But of course there are ambiguities, they were fucking riots, even people who were in the middle of them won't know everything that's happening - because it's a fucking riot. Even to fairly calm events 10 witnesses will have 10 conflicting stories.

As to the Stonewall riots themselves, weren't they simply a flashpoint for tension that had been building up for sometime? Kind of artificial to try and dissect out the critical components of it?

[Ultimate Paragon]

So this is one of those things where you say something, something not correct which is reasonably contentious, which could only really have one purpose. But then someone (in this case the Royal Feminine One) points out you're wrong you backtrack and then finally resort to "well it's ambiguous/ historically controversial"...

I never backpedalled.  I stated from the very beginning that we can't know for sure.

But it's to point out ambiguities? You weren't particularly ambiguous in your first post. But of course there are ambiguities, they were fucking riots, even people who were in the middle of them won't know everything that's happening - because it's a fucking riot. Even to fairly calm events 10 witnesses will have 10 conflicting stories.

Um, yes I was.  And since we don't have much actual evidence from the start of the riots, we have to rely on said contradictory testimony.

As to the Stonewall riots themselves, weren't they simply a flashpoint for tension that had been building up for sometime? Kind of artificial to try and dissect out the critical components of it?

I don't know, ask Her Highness.  She did the exact same thing.  It was she who got this ball rolling by talking with such certainty about how the movie depicted the riots.  Don't get me wrong, she was completely right to complain about the marginalization or outright removal of certain historical figures, but a good deal of artistic license is necessary, considering there's not even a consensus as to who went to Stonewall.

[Eiki-mun]

Wait, so Stonewall isn't a movie about the heroism of Stonewall Jackson?

Please don't shoot me.

[lord gibbon]

Well, all things considered, it would be about as accurate.

[The_Queen]

I don't know, ask Her Highness.  She did the exact same thing.  It was she who got this ball rolling by talking with such certainty about how the movie depicted the riots.  Don't get me wrong, she was completely right to complain about the marginalization or outright removal of certain historical figures, but a good deal of artistic license is necessary, considering there's not even a consensus as to who went to Stonewall.

I made a joke about the NYPD, dipshit. Specifically, that they were a bunch of cis, straight, white authoritarians eager to brutalize the next uppity minority that looks at them funny. That is why I put it here (thread killer). Though, the random thoughts would probably have been a better location. Nonetheless.

(click to show/hide)

Rivera stated she was a regular patron of the Stonewall Inn, and was present during the Stonewall Riots in 1969, when gay men, lesbians, drag queens, street people and trans people rose up against what started as a routine raid by the police

My view of this, we have a host of other transwomen of color present who made a big splash at Stonewall. Other reports indicate that she was a regular. The LGb movement for 40 years tried to distance themselves from transsexuals and erase transsexuals from being at Stonewall so that they could justify the moment "where pride began" as the moment for their (gay white) cause. All things considered, while there may be ambiguities, I feel the evidence is stronger that she was present at the riots. Even then, the fact that the movie is widely criticized for excluding transsexuals and people of color should be some indication to you.

And you know damn well that you sought to delegitimize the contribution to the modern gay rights movement by transsexuals of color. You made that point before and I let it slide because I was working 60+ hour weeks arguing and writing for a career. I reiterate my point that there is a reason that the names that came out of Stonewall are Sylvia Rivera, Marsha Johnson, and Miss Major Griffin-Gracy and not Danny fucking Winters. And I double down on my point that giving Marsha Johnson's iconic moment to a white, cis, gay man serves as a pristine example of how LGb groups for the last 40 years have tried to erase transsexual contributions to the queer rights movement.

[ironbite]

*stands up and gives Queen a round of applause*

[Ultimate Paragon]

I don't know, ask Her Highness.  She did the exact same thing.  It was she who got this ball rolling by talking with such certainty about how the movie depicted the riots.  Don't get me wrong, she was completely right to complain about the marginalization or outright removal of certain historical figures, but a good deal of artistic license is necessary, considering there's not even a consensus as to who went to Stonewall.

I made a joke about the NYPD, dipshit. Specifically, that they were a bunch of cis, straight, white authoritarians eager to brutalize the next uppity minority that looks at them funny. That is why I put it here (thread killer). Though, the random thoughts would probably have been a better location. Nonetheless.

(click to show/hide)

Rivera stated she was a regular patron of the Stonewall Inn, and was present during the Stonewall Riots in 1969, when gay men, lesbians, drag queens, street people and trans people rose up against what started as a routine raid by the police

My view of this, we have a host of other transwomen of color present who made a big splash at Stonewall. Other reports indicate that she was a regular. The LGb movement for 40 years tried to distance themselves from transsexuals and erase transsexuals from being at Stonewall so that they could justify the moment "where pride began" as the moment for their (gay white) cause. All things considered, while there may be ambiguities, I feel the evidence is stronger that she was present at the riots. Even then, the fact that the movie is widely criticized for excluding transsexuals and people of color should be some indication to you.

And you know damn well that you sought to delegitimize the contribution to the modern gay rights movement by transsexuals of color. You made that point before and I let it slide because I was working 60+ hour weeks arguing and writing for a career. I reiterate my point that there is a reason that the names that came out of Stonewall are Sylvia Rivera, Marsha Johnson, and Miss Major Griffin-Gracy and not Danny fucking Winters. And I double down on my point that giving Marsha Johnson's iconic moment to a white, cis, gay man serves as a pristine example of how LGb groups for the last 40 years have tried to erase transsexual contributions to the queer rights movement.

Look, I'm willing to acknowledge that I might be wrong.  Maybe my sources were incorrect.  But I don't like you misrepresenting my arguments.  I never attempted to downplay the contributions of Rivera, Johnson, or Griffin-Gracy.

I'm fine with accepting disagreement, but the least you could do is stop putting words in my mouth.

And you're complaining about nitpicking on the Internet?  You might as well complain about some sand on Tatooine.

[The_Queen]

I don't know, ask Her Highness.  She did the exact same thing.  It was she who got this ball rolling by talking with such certainty about how the movie depicted the riots.  Don't get me wrong, she was completely right to complain about the marginalization or outright removal of certain historical figures, but a good deal of artistic license is necessary, considering there's not even a consensus as to who went to Stonewall.

I made a joke about the NYPD, dipshit. Specifically, that they were a bunch of cis, straight, white authoritarians eager to brutalize the next uppity minority that looks at them funny. That is why I put it here (thread killer). Though, the random thoughts would probably have been a better location. Nonetheless.

(click to show/hide)

Rivera stated she was a regular patron of the Stonewall Inn, and was present during the Stonewall Riots in 1969, when gay men, lesbians, drag queens, street people and trans people rose up against what started as a routine raid by the police

My view of this, we have a host of other transwomen of color present who made a big splash at Stonewall. Other reports indicate that she was a regular. The LGb movement for 40 years tried to distance themselves from transsexuals and erase transsexuals from being at Stonewall so that they could justify the moment "where pride began" as the moment for their (gay white) cause. All things considered, while there may be ambiguities, I feel the evidence is stronger that she was present at the riots. Even then, the fact that the movie is widely criticized for excluding transsexuals and people of color should be some indication to you.

And you know damn well that you sought to delegitimize the contribution to the modern gay rights movement by transsexuals of color. You made that point before and I let it slide because I was working 60+ hour weeks arguing and writing for a career. I reiterate my point that there is a reason that the names that came out of Stonewall are Sylvia Rivera, Marsha Johnson, and Miss Major Griffin-Gracy and not Danny fucking Winters. And I double down on my point that giving Marsha Johnson's iconic moment to a white, cis, gay man serves as a pristine example of how LGb groups for the last 40 years have tried to erase transsexual contributions to the queer rights movement.

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/files/2014/01/StrawMan2.jpg

So, after watching a bunch of trailers to Roland Emmerich's Stonewall, I can at least take solace that in this white-washed and trans-erased version of "where pride began," he at least he portrayed the NYPD accurately; as authoritarians eager to brutalize the next minority that looks at them wrong.

You jumped on the singular phrase "trans-erased." However, if you look at the full context "white-washed and trans-erased" you see that I utilized those words to describe the movie as historically-inaccurate to juxtapose that the NYPD being shitty is the sole accuracy in the film. I further highlight this point with the words "I can at least take solace that ...at least he portrayed the NYPD accurately."

It was a joke at the NYPD's expense, and you chose to look for an argument to justify the marginalization of transsexuals. Sassy photos prove nothing.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I don't know, ask Her Highness.  She did the exact same thing.  It was she who got this ball rolling by talking with such certainty about how the movie depicted the riots.  Don't get me wrong, she was completely right to complain about the marginalization or outright removal of certain historical figures, but a good deal of artistic license is necessary, considering there's not even a consensus as to who went to Stonewall.

I made a joke about the NYPD, dipshit. Specifically, that they were a bunch of cis, straight, white authoritarians eager to brutalize the next uppity minority that looks at them funny. That is why I put it here (thread killer). Though, the random thoughts would probably have been a better location. Nonetheless.

(click to show/hide)

Rivera stated she was a regular patron of the Stonewall Inn, and was present during the Stonewall Riots in 1969, when gay men, lesbians, drag queens, street people and trans people rose up against what started as a routine raid by the police

My view of this, we have a host of other transwomen of color present who made a big splash at Stonewall. Other reports indicate that she was a regular. The LGb movement for 40 years tried to distance themselves from transsexuals and erase transsexuals from being at Stonewall so that they could justify the moment "where pride began" as the moment for their (gay white) cause. All things considered, while there may be ambiguities, I feel the evidence is stronger that she was present at the riots. Even then, the fact that the movie is widely criticized for excluding transsexuals and people of color should be some indication to you.

And you know damn well that you sought to delegitimize the contribution to the modern gay rights movement by transsexuals of color. You made that point before and I let it slide because I was working 60+ hour weeks arguing and writing for a career. I reiterate my point that there is a reason that the names that came out of Stonewall are Sylvia Rivera, Marsha Johnson, and Miss Major Griffin-Gracy and not Danny fucking Winters. And I double down on my point that giving Marsha Johnson's iconic moment to a white, cis, gay man serves as a pristine example of how LGb groups for the last 40 years have tried to erase transsexual contributions to the queer rights movement.

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/files/2014/01/StrawMan2.jpg

So, after watching a bunch of trailers to Roland Emmerich's Stonewall, I can at least take solace that in this white-washed and trans-erased version of "where pride began," he at least he portrayed the NYPD accurately; as authoritarians eager to brutalize the next minority that looks at them wrong.

You jumped on the singular phrase "trans-erased." However, if you look at the full context "white-washed and trans-erased" you see that I utilized those words to describe the movie as historically-inaccurate to juxtapose that the NYPD being shitty is the sole accuracy in the film. I further highlight this point with the words "I can at least take solace that ... he portrayed the NYPD accurately."

It was a joke at the NYPD's expense, and you chose to look for an argument to justify the marginalization of transsexuals. Sassy photos prove nothing.

Goddammit, stop making a mountain of a molehill!

*deep breath*  Look, I understand why you're upset.  I really do.  In the West at least, trans people have really bad it bad when compared to the rest of the spectrum.  Marginalization is a legitimate issue.  And if I'm wrong, I sincerely apologize.  But there's a difference between what Emmerich was doing, and what I'm doing.  Emmerich downplayed and even outright removed historical figures for the sake of a more "palatable" movie.  Me, I'm merely looking at historical evidence, and acknowledging other possibilities.

I'm hardly an expert on this, so for all I know, you could be completely right.  However, there's no need to make personal attacks or accuse me of having ulterior motives.  If questioning a narrative makes people bigots, then you're going to see a lot less intellectual curiosity.

[The_Queen]

You know you intended to erase transsexuals at stonewall. Last time you argued that point, you posted this little piece of shit from a well known transphobe in the legal community. Next time, don't throw a law professor at law student who just wrote a note that included the inadequacies of the LGb movement for transsexuals.

Carpenter's statements in that piece highlight what Paragon sought to do here. As indicia, Paragon even refers to a Transgender Stonewall as a "myth," paralleling the exact phrases from Carpenter. I belabor that Carpenter wrote this to justify transsexuals' the exclusion from the LGb movement, again so that he could project an image of normalcy by the LGb movement as he often did in his academic writings.

Here is the standard story: "On the night of June 28, 1969, the New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, a bar that included a mix of drag queens and lesbians. Led by the drag queens, the patrons fought back, igniting the gay civil rights movement. Yet the new movement soon became overly image-conscious and pushed these brave heroes to the back of the bus. It's high time we repay our debt by fully including transgender issues in gay causes, including proposed legislation."

This fictionalized account

If we learned the Stonewall police had busted up a meeting of gay white racists, instead of drag queens, we wouldn't say that should make us more attentive to the concerns of racists. These matters rise or fall on their own merits, not on the relative role groups played in distant and disputed events.

And speaking of the merits, drafting legislation is an immensely complicated task that involves putting together a coalition of supporters. Gay civil rights legislation would be stalled or effectively killed in many places if transgenders were included. The choice is often between a more inclusive bill that goes nowhere and a less inclusive bill that actually becomes law. It is not "transphobic" to make this point; it is pragmatic.

This point does not deny that drag queens participated in the riot. They did. It only makes the point that their centrality to the event likely has been exaggerated, probably for ideological reasons.

And further, you're the one that keeps dragging this up. I explained in my last post that it was a joke at the NYPD's expense and give numerous justifications for that. Instead of letting it go and conceding that it was a joke, you argue that I am making a mountain out of a molehill about erasure, when my last post mentioned diddly shit about erasure. Thing is, I was never upset, I originally posted that as a joke, and you jumped on one singular (albeit hyphenated) word so that you could start an argument. Chill the fuck out already.