Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

The Trans highjacking of Stonewall

When director Roland Emmerich set out to create his upcoming film “Stonewall,” he was engaging in a labor of love. He desired to tell the very American story of standing up to power and demanding equal rights. What he could not have expected is that angry backlash and threats of boycotts would come, not from right-wing, religious zealots, but from the LGBT community itself. Now Emmerich stands accused of whitewashing and cis-washing the seminal event in gay-rights history.

The allegation is that Emmerich, by choosing a white protagonist from middle America (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) to tell his story, is trying to deny others, specifically trans persons of color, their rightful place as the true heroes of Stonewall. This is all based on a relatively recent myth that it was the transvestites (as they were then known) who were at the vanguard of the riot, leading the pasty, limp-wristed, white, gay crowd to courage they could never have summoned on their own. “Stonewall” stands accused of perpetuating a racist and anti-trans version of the past.

The accusation is absurd on its face. But the widespread willingness of many on the Left and in the gay community to embrace the very flawed narrative used to attack Emmerich is telling. It speaks not only to the rewriting of gay history, but to a broader effort to ensure that our historical record is purged of references to the heroic actions of overly privileged people. Not only must the privileged of today confess their advantages, the privileged of the past must be stripped of their laurels.

What Really Happened? In the history of the gay-rights movement, Stonewall stands out as the opening act of the dramatic struggle, one that brought us to the wide acceptance of homosexuality in society today. The riot at the Stonewall Inn is rightfully regarded as the first angry demand for equal rights by the LGBT community. What should have been a routine police raid on an underground New York City gay bar turned into much more. For a variety of reasons, patrons were fed up. No longer content to scurry off into the night, they stood their ground. The confrontation with police that ensued would forever change the gay-rights movement and the nation.

The confrontation with police that ensued would forever change the gay-rights movement and the nation. In his excellent book on Stonewall, David Carter recounts the hectic events that led up to the violence of June 29, 1969. In the preceding week, the police had seemed to step up their raids and intimidation of the gay community in New York City’s West Village neighborhood. Some believed this was related to the mayoral election, that Mayor Lindsay was trying to look tough on immoral behavior. Others cited new leadership in the sixth police precinct that covered the neighborhood. But, whatever the cause, tension was high. These were life-and-death issues for many of the closeted gay men, who risked losing their jobs and even their families if they were arrested in a gay bar.

The raid started like many others. The police entered, turned on the lights, and began separating patrons from the people who worked there, including the mafia bosses who ran the illegal club. Another group they separated were the small number of transvestites, who were breaking the law by wearing women’s clothing and who the police suspected of prostitution. Those groups were held in the back room. Meanwhile, in the main room, some gay patrons were filing out after showing ID, and others were stubbornly refusing to leave. As tensions rose, crowds gathered outside, soon in the hundreds. It started to become clear that this would not be another routine raid.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40June 3, 2020 3:52 PM

Here’s Where the History Diverges This is the point at which those who accept the revisionist history of events believe that the trans women of color present, more or less on their own, started fighting back. It is clear from Carter’s book, as well as his valuable collection of first-person accounts, that a trans woman hit a policeman with her purse. There are also accounts of a “butch lesbian” fighting with police outside the club. Other mentions of trans people are scattered.

To demean their acts of courage that night, for any social or political reason, is simply shameful. But these were a handful of individuals out of hundreds who were hurling coins and cans, trying to overturn a police wagon, and rioting on Christopher Street. The vast majority of these rioters were indeed, young, white, gay men. To demean their acts of courage that night, for any social or political reason, is simply shameful. Any American who celebrated the victory of gay marriage this year owes these men an enormous debt. Those who are repaying that debt with scorn and threats of boycotting a film that celebrates them are engaged in a despicable act.

Consider the accounts of the white, gay men interviewed for an AARP video celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Stonewall. They are quite clear about what led them to riot. It wasn’t the actions of the small number of transvestites that led them to fight back. It was the actions of the police, the frustration of being left behind in a nation that was slowly embracing civil rights. It was the moment when they refused to be cowed by a culture that condemned the very essence of who they were.

Let us be clear that those who accuse “Stonewall,” the movie, of whitewashing and cis-washing the events of that night are calling these men liars. In a terrible and disgusting irony, many of today’s gay-rights activists are accusing their incredibly courageous progenitors of exactly the kind of weakness and passivity that the actions of Stonewall belied. But what could lead to this? How could we have reached the point where those who enjoy the wide acceptance of homosexuality today are damning the memory of the very people who made that acceptance possible?

by Anonymousreply 1November 11, 2015 3:53 PM

Heroes Are Heroes for a Reason Sadly, the current practice of revising history to downplay the contributions of privileged, suspect classes of people is widespread in the academy and popular culture. From the questionable changes to the Advanced Placement American history curriculum to the banishment of Jefferson and Jackson from the lore of the Democratic Party, these erasures are becoming more common. This is rooted in a desire to bring the dark periods of the past into better sync with the enlightened attitudes of modern progressives.

It is the very fact that gay, white men have reached such a level of acceptance in our society that makes them the target of historical revisionism. This is folly. It is affirmative action applied to historical narrative. In providing a more balanced and diverse version of history, it is not enough for progressives to celebrate the actions of the traditionally unsung. They must also besmirch the traditional heroes. For progressives it is not enough for Emmerich to include trans people of color in his film (which he absolutely does), he must knock the gay, white participants off their pedestal. The gay, white men of Stonewall can no longer be the heroes of their own story. They must rather, apologize for having appropriated an event that they allegedly have no right to call their own.

For those who believe our nation is little more than a breeding ground of inequality, privilege, and racism, the past must be forcibly brought in line with the present. Facts be damned. Circumstances be damned. Unless one was a member of a group or class that is oppressed today, he or she has no business being celebrated in history. Whatever a person accomplished was simply the byproduct of systems meant to ensure his or her dominance.

This irony underlies this entire absurd controversy. It is the very fact that gay, white men have reached such a level of acceptance in our society that makes them the target of historical revisionism. It doesn’t matter that, 40 years ago when the windows were smashed at the Stonewall Inn, these very same men were among the most reviled and vulnerable in our country. Now they have privilege. And they must sacrifice their own proud history in a vain attempt to empower others.

It won’t work. Inventing a historical narrative for trans people or people of color by exaggerating their role in actual events is not empowering. There is no concerted effort to rob transvestites of their role at Stonewall. Even a cursory student of the event is acquainted with their contributions. And people who watch “Stonewall” will become acquainted with them. But the demand that transvestites be treated as the primary motivating factor of the Stonewall riots is hogwash.

The fate of “Stonewall,” the movie, is unclear now. With so much of its target audience convinced it is presenting a maliciously false version of events, who will see it? It’s not the 2005 of “Brokeback Mountain.” The subject matter of homosexuality is no longer shocking enough to ensure ticket sales. Social-justice warriors may succeed in suppressing the film. But no amount of progressive mythology can change what really happened. Stonewall will always belong to the people who fought there, the vast majority of whom were gay, white men.

by Anonymousreply 2November 11, 2015 3:54 PM

Oh, good. Another thread to watch implode and then get deleted.

by Anonymousreply 3November 11, 2015 3:55 PM

[quote]The riot at the Stonewall Inn is rightfully regarded as the first angry demand for equal rights by the LGBT community.

Regarded yes, but it truly began as a protest against payola.

by Anonymousreply 4November 11, 2015 3:57 PM

There are several more explicit excerpts from David Carter's book where it's made explicit the vast majority of the rioters were indeed 'cis' white gay men.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5November 11, 2015 3:57 PM

[quote]There are several more explicit excerpts from David Carter's book where it's made explicit the vast majority of the rioters were indeed 'cis' white gay men.

No need for "cis," R4, even with single quotation marks.

by Anonymousreply 6November 11, 2015 3:59 PM

WEBPERSYN

Please ban this hateful, bigoted anti-trans thread which reeks of cisgender gay privilege.

This is not the kind of filth we want to see on Translounge.

by Anonymousreply 7November 11, 2015 4:03 PM

I know how they feel.

by Anonymousreply 8November 11, 2015 4:15 PM

A couple of objective DL threads about Stonewall. Here's the first:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9November 11, 2015 4:20 PM

Here's the second:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10November 11, 2015 4:23 PM

Yes, the eyewitness accounts have always said the majority of people at Stonewall were white men in their 20s. There were some drag queens and lesbians (one of whom was finally named when a few pages of the police report came out a few years ago) and apparently quite a few Puerto Rican kids, plus some allies in a black gang or two who joined that first night in the protests.

By the second night, the crowd was MUCH more diverse. I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes from.

All that said, I think Emmerich could have done better with the film, because the little white boy lost in the big city trope is just tired as hell. I'm waiting for this to come out on home video of some kind so I'll reserve opinion on whether it was whitewashed or not. Knowing Emmerich, it could be, but I can't condemn it until I've seen it.

by Anonymousreply 11November 11, 2015 4:41 PM

OP, congratulations! What a timely and overlooked topic for discussion! Many thanks.

by Anonymousreply 12November 11, 2015 4:59 PM

Have any of you guys seen the photographs from that night? I think it will answer any questions you have regarding who was there.

by Anonymousreply 13November 11, 2015 5:04 PM

I saw only proud transwomen of color, R13. You must be hallucinating, perhaps your hate-fuelled bigotry for your trans brothers and sisters has blinded you to the new , official , trans approved truth.

by Anonymousreply 14November 11, 2015 5:07 PM

But that smart black lady the "Harvard Divinity professor" said it was mostly black transwomen and similar minorities. She promised that's God's Honest truth.

by Anonymousreply 15November 11, 2015 5:14 PM

"the first angry demand for equal rights by the LGBT community."

Except there was no such community at the time.

by Anonymousreply 16November 11, 2015 5:31 PM

the doctor and i went back back to the riots in the tardis. all of you had it all wrong

by Anonymousreply 17November 11, 2015 6:06 PM

I am all for choosing your battles and battle grounds and, quite frankly, to get into a bitchfest about a Hollywood movie and its mainstream appealing idea of Stonewall is just so not worth it imo. These deranged SJWs look only more deranged when it's only them making a big stink about Hollywood's Stonewall.

by Anonymousreply 18November 11, 2015 6:13 PM

There were VERY FEW transexuals as we think of them now back in the '60.

A man in a dress was as rare as a dodo bird, and even then, they weren't trannys, they were just into"gender-fuck." More drag than an attempt to pass as a woman.

by Anonymousreply 19November 11, 2015 6:54 PM

There were "hormone queens," but even they were grouped with drag queens and "face queens" (guys who wore male clothing and makeup) since they didn't want SRS. "Sex changes" were considered their own category since most went stealth and cut ties with their pasts.

by Anonymousreply 20November 11, 2015 7:02 PM

^ Hormone queens, BTW, were folks like Candy Darling and Holly Woodlawn.

by Anonymousreply 21November 11, 2015 7:05 PM

[quote]The allegation is that Emmerich, by choosing a white protagonist from middle America (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) to tell his story, is trying to deny others, specifically trans persons of color, their rightful place as the true heroes of Stonewall.

Umm, note to David Marcus of The Federalist: The white protagonist from middle America is portrayed in the film by Jeremy Irvine, NOT by Jonathan Rhys Meyers, who has another role in the movie.

by Anonymousreply 22November 11, 2015 7:11 PM

The article was writing before the film was released

by Anonymousreply 23November 11, 2015 8:14 PM

[quote]The article was writing before the film was released

But not before the film was cast. As I said, Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays another role in the film, not "the white protagonist from middle America."

by Anonymousreply 24November 11, 2015 8:17 PM

I was there and I led the protests. Give me an award.

by Anonymousreply 25November 11, 2015 8:24 PM

r25 do you lend your dick to kanye west when he bones his fashion designer boyfriend?

by Anonymousreply 26November 11, 2015 8:38 PM

Last week I listened to a young (20-something) colleague talk for a good twenty minutes about how trans WOC were behind almost all advances in the gay rights since Stonewall.

I really had no words.

by Anonymousreply 27March 5, 2019 12:37 PM

wish this trans fad would go away

by Anonymousreply 28March 5, 2019 1:07 PM

I've always been uneasy about the hijacking of the LGB by the T. The reason for this, I think adding the transgender to the alphabet soup hurt the cause of gay rights by at least a decade or more. People were finally getting over the ick factor with gay sex, then transgender comes along and you don't know if that hot girl was once a man? That was just too much for most people.

by Anonymousreply 29March 5, 2019 1:24 PM

I went to a new, local "LGBT" party this week in my area (that didn't have any local ones). I'm not dependant on gay bars but I thought it'd be nice to have somewhere so close to home to hang out sometimes. I wasn't expecting much but of course the minute we walk in, there were 2 flamboyant trannies who just attacked us. Bad wigs, bad makeup, deep voices...you know the deal. Of course within 2 minutes they're taking out "business cards" and telling us about THEIR meet ups and groups "if we're into that kind of thing". I was shocked at the audacity. And yes, these business cards had their pictures on them with links to websites. I was like what fucking nerve to try and lure us away from an already 'inclusive' place to a strictly T place. Really sick. Anyway, this stuff is happening and it's real. Gay people really need to put their foot down and draw a line in the sand.

by Anonymousreply 30March 5, 2019 2:10 PM

[quote]I was like what fucking nerve to try and lure us away from an already 'inclusive' place to a strictly T place.

Are you kidding? Let them GO to their "strictly T place," and take with them anyone who wants to go.

by Anonymousreply 31March 5, 2019 2:23 PM

I'm so sick of this 21st century "washing" nonsense. Nothing gets "washed" unless soap and water are involved. "Washed" is the worst of all millenniphors.

by Anonymousreply 32March 5, 2019 3:06 PM

R31 then they can stay at their T places and let us have gay places. Gays and lesbians have NOTHING more in common with T's than we do with any other minority. We are not fighting the same fight and it's ludicrous and offensive to imply we are. Anyway, they weren't there to be 'a part of the community', they didn't even live in the area. It was just to recruit people. It is what it is.

by Anonymousreply 33March 5, 2019 3:43 PM

The Federalist, OP? Really?

by Anonymousreply 34March 5, 2019 3:52 PM

r27, I would've asked them:

Name 10 "trans woc" who actually did a great deal for gay rights, without selecting Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera. Crickets. Then I would turn around and tell them about Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon, Leonard Matlovich, Harvey Milk, etc., etc., etc.

by Anonymousreply 35March 5, 2019 3:53 PM

r34, sadly, conservative media is currently the only mainstream media that is defending the rights and existence of women and gay men & lesbians. That is how upside-down the world has become.

by Anonymousreply 36March 5, 2019 3:54 PM

R36 Judging by the comments on that article, I'm not sure that site's readers agree with you.

by Anonymousreply 37March 5, 2019 3:57 PM

I've said this on other threads, but if the ACT UP/AIDS activism of the 80s and early 90s hadn't been so meticulously documented with video and photo evidence, the trans brigade would now be trying to take sole credit for that as well. I would bet money on it. Unlike Stonewall, they can't do it because there's too much documentation about that chapter of gay history to try and change it to something it wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 38March 5, 2019 3:59 PM

Especially since Jonathan Rhys Myers is a straight up racist.

by Anonymousreply 39March 5, 2019 4:00 PM

Give them time, r38. They’ll do that anyway.

by Anonymousreply 40June 3, 2020 3:52 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!