41–50 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wording has changed throughout history as has our understanding of gender and sexuality. While the specific word "transgender" may not have existed, it's still true that she lived as a woman at the time. At the very least, you can't argue that there's gender-nonconformity going on there. The fact that the Stonewall monument was targeted for removing references of "trans" should hint at why the author of the extension…
> it's still true that she lived as a woman at the time That's an awfully sexist perspective, isn't it? A man acting out some feminine stereotypes doesn't somehow become a woman by doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised that they bothered to replace the sign at all. I'd expect them to just remove it, the way they've eliminated all mention of homosexuality in other parts of the government. I suspect that the monument itself will be disestablished, as soon as they get around to it.
They would never remove a monument right? Or does it have to be a statue to count?
But yes, they absolutely could decide that LGBT history is not worth celebrating in the same way we've decided that treason and slave-owning isn't worth celebrating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would never remove a monument right? Or does it have to be a statue to count?
This isn't just a "monument" in the sense of a statue. It's a National Monument, like Devils Tower or the Little Bighorn Battlefield. But yes, they absolutely could decide that LGBT history is not worth celebrating in the same way we've decided that treason and slave-owning isn't worth celebrating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't just a "monument" in the sense of a statue. It's a National Monument, like Devils Tower or the Little Bighorn Battlefield. But yes, they absolutely could decide that LGBT history is not worth celebrating in the same way we've decided that treason and slave-owning isn't worth celebrating.
I thought the argument for statues was "it's history not celebration".
But it's a little unclear on why they decided that quite so much of our history should be about those particular people. They never seemed to want to supplement other statues to remember more of history.
[flagged]
Alright, sure, some of the flag designs are not well done, but I doubt you're talking about vexillology. Queer just refers to "not straight". It's a general term. Bisexual people have made up their minds, they like more than one gender. Asexual people face stigma just the same as gay and lesbian people do. They're all just different sexualities that differ from the norm, so why not include them together? It really do…
Apparently this is the background context: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/g-s1-48923/stonewall-monument...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most obvious example is the "Three Article Rule" that enforced that you must wear at least 3 articles of clothing that "match" your assigned sex at birth. These were easy rules for police to use to justify arresting people. I'm sure others more in the know can provide similar laws and ordinances that affected trans and cross dressing people.
If that's the most obvious example: > The problem is, the law technically never existed. Instead, accounts suggest that police generally used old, often unrelated laws to target LGBT people throughout the 1940s, ‘50s and ‘60s. 1st hit: https://www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-lgbtq-drag-thre...