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).
