I suspect that the monument itself will be disestablished, as soon as they get around to it.
Were there any laws that affected trans people at all, though? There were laws against homosexual sex (covered by LGB), but I don't recall any laws about expressing gender identity.
> Anti-cross-dressing laws were the exclusive province of local governments, and no state or federal legislature directly outlawed this type of dress. Several states did, however, pass anti-disguise or masquerade laws that encompassed cross-dressing when enforced. In 1845, for example, New York’s state legislature passed an anti-disguise law that made it a crime to appear in public with a painted face or when wearing a disguise designed to prevent identification. Passed in response to rural workers who wore women’s dresses and masks while participating in anti-rent protests, the law was later used to criminalize a wide range of cross-dressing practices.
> Similarly, in 1874, California’s state legislature passed a masquerade law in response to gambling saloon dealers who wore disguises to avoid identification by undercover police. As with New York’s anti-disguise statute, local police repurposed California’s masquerade law to arrest multiple people for public cross-dressing over the next one hundred years.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/jailbreak-the-patri...
Trans people are also taxpayers.
I assume that the intention is to confuse people. They at some point found out that Johnson wasn't at Stonewall until it was over, but still for some reason need that name to continue to be associated with the event. I assume the next extension will insert mentions of Saddam Hussein around any mention of 9/11, but include a disclaimer that says "I know Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11."
https://bsky.app/profile/hughryan.bsky.social/post/3li5yltc3...
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.
That's the kind of black and white and moralistic thinking that are causing people to distance themselves from today's ideological transgenderists.
I can support your right to be safe as a person but not believe everything you say or state that your ideology and tactics are wrong. You get ahead in this world and gain acceptance through practical thinking, not moralistic thinking.
I grew up in a lily-white city, some of the first black people I met were a couple where the man was an engineer at the Raytheon plant that made Patriot missiles. My family was out riding our bikes and one of us got a flat, they helped us fix it and gave us some lemonade in my kitchen. After that I wanted to see more black people move to my town.
The first transgender person I met was a great engineering student, amateur astronomer, and science fiction fan. I found out all those things before I found out she was transgender. She got kicked out of the air force academy but our nation's loss was my gain.
When I got on Mastodon I was just shocked with how many transgender people were sharing hateful image memes, complaining about everybody else and insisting that everybody else's thoughts and feelings were wrong, like all the rest of us didn't have the right to make any decisions at all. If that was the first thing I'd ever seen of transgenderism I'd think it was a disease.
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 doesn't erase any individual community in my experience.
As far as intersex and trans people are concerned, maybe you just haven't thought it out that much. Of course intersex people would feel differently about surgeries performed on them than trans people would. The former had a surgery forced on them without consent. The latter choses (or not) to have something done. Incels very clearly have nothing to do with "cis-het" discourse.
Even if I was to disregard all of that, trans people still belong in the community for the simple reason that they're a large part of how the modern queer community has formed. They've faced the same stigmas as lesbian and gay folks. Even within lesbian and gay communities, there's been quite a lot of gender-nonconformity (look into lesbian movements in the 70's for example).
Trans people exist and have for much longer than you probably realize. Maybe you need to go back to your roots and actually talk to some trans people. You might realize that the popular caricature isn't as accurate as you seem to think.
Myself I have gone out in drag in the past and seen for myself from people's microexpressions that it is not entirely safe. I think people should be safe to express whatever gender characteristics they wish whenever they want to express them. In the past 15 years the T community went through a sharp ideological bend that is reducitivist and deliberately polarizating that is making it less safe to be different from other people, not more safe. Just because I practice Foxwork and channel an entity which might be a different gender than myself means I need to endorse the self-described 'egg-hatcher' who persuaded a neurodivergent friend of my son to go down a path that hasn't solved his [2] real problems but has added more problems.
[1] speech is free, listening is priceless; want to be part of a movement, understand that movement in all its diversity, don't make a black-and-white there-is-no-alternative declaration that other people have no choice in the matter
[2] he says we can call him 'he' at this time even though she goes by 'she' at work
say the person who quite literally can't accept that there can be more than three letters in an acronym, less the entire world order be thrown to the wind
> The birth of anti-cross-dressing laws (also known as masquerade laws and the three-article rule)[31] stemmed from the increase in non-traditional gender expression during the spread of America's frontier, and the will to reinforce the two-gender system which was threatened by those who deviated from it.[32] Some of the earlier cases of US arrests made due to cross-dressing are seen in 19th century Ohio. In 1848, Ohio passed a law which prohibited its citizens from publicly presenting themselves "in a dress not belonging to his or her sex," and during the 1850s, over 40 cities in the US went on to pass anti-cross-dressing laws.[33] By the time the US entered WWI, over 150 cities had passed anti-cross-dressing ordinances.
> 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...
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.
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.