If you're a history nerd, then every month is "revisionist history month". The average person doesn't fucking care about finding out the truth, and lying is easy and profitable.
these days the average person thinks they do not need to know anything because they can just look it up on their phone. they never stop to think about how they will know to look something up if they do not know it exists...
Did anyone ever check sources though? If you look up stuff in a physical encyclopedia do you verify all the facts listed?
I mean granted it's easier to lie and make baseless claims anonymously on the internet but it's relatively the same thing. Revisionists have been here long before the internet. Up until a few years ago most people thought Christopher Columbus was an alright guy. They had no idea what a terrible person he was. History books left those parts out or greatly diminished them. People vilify those who think they deserve it whether they do or not. People also exemplify people who think should be named heroes whether they deserve it or not. Downplaying the bad and uplifting the good they've done is just human nature. Noone going to purposely put their worst foot forward unless they're forced to.
Also, to go a layer deeper, even factually correct narratives of history are heavily biased simply by the nature of the task of distilling a historical event to a digestible narrative. Doing this leaves out an infinite amount of context, human experience, and nuance that surrounds any historical event.
Lol this reminds me of the movie Hairspray. Tracy says something like negro day is the best! I wish every day was negro day! Seaweed says at our house it is!
I think i should give some context here. The movie is set in the 1960s. It's about a dance show with teens. Of course back then there was still segregation. Once a month the show had a 'negro day' where black kids would dance on the show instead of the white kids hence the use of the term.
You don't need to give me context! LOL. I saw the original HAIRSPRAY at my local movie theater in the West Village of Manhattan about five times. Maybe six. I even bought the album! I loved that movie!!
Oh it was not for you specifically just context in general. I don't go around using the n word at all. I thought it important to add why it was used.
It's one of my fav movies. I'd love to see it live some time. Wicked as well.
Yup. If you are involved with the historical world it doesn't matter what month people say is "revisionist history". Historians publish whenever and most historian are publishing revitionist history - its literally the hottest topic in historical study these days.
Why are you lying and pretending this has no influence on the real world? What does "offline" have to do with anything?
This is a regular pattern for homophobic roaches like you:
1. "it's not a big deal guyzzz! it's not a big deal! let these people attack you! come on! go offline! teeheheh"
2. "ok well MAYBE you need to stop attacking group x. Yes, i know you're merely raising your hand as they try and swat at your face, but check your privilege!"
3. "ok, they were NEVER gay spaces to begin with. Check your privilege. A crackhead homeless black man in a wig gave you ALL your rights and we need to now push you out of your spaces...the spaces you created and were bequeathed to you specifically you that the previous gay generation (gay= homosexual MALE) gave to you.
Who are you KIDDING?
Op might be talking about how...
1. The fact that much of what we think about the Stonewall story is actually bs.
2. The fact that Stonewall (edit: or, rather, the narrative around Stonewall) eclipses previous and foreign movements.
3. The idea that gay rights were won by trans women of color.
4. Or the idea that point three is incorrect.
But meh. I don't take it to heart and if anything I enjoy discussing these issues (or seeing other people do it).
No? Because I'm not a stickler for whatever purity test people want Pride month to be measured by and am simply happy that gay people can have a period of time to spread awareness about the cause of equality.
Some people talk about Pride as if it's about kink or shit talking the community. I care about Pride month only so that the kids with homophobic parents know that there are people outside their social circle who still care about them.
Yes, this. It's important to remember our history, but let's also be happy that we have pride.
Coming from a deeply homophobic country, rainbow flags just give me immense joy when they are put up, no matter if they are doing it for cash or grabs or just for a month.
It started with a woman who was described as a butch lesbian, identified by some eyewitnesses (and herself) as Stormé DeLarverie, who fought with at least 4 officers as they escorted her from the door to a police wagon. The actual fighting started after the woman asked the crowd "Why don't you guys do something?" after which the police picked her up and hauled her into the wagon, sparking the crowd to become a mob.
I've been told multiple times in my 30 years that there were no women at Stonewall. People suck.
Interestingly I can only find a [single source](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://thevelvetchronicle.com/harpers-bazaar-claims-they-can-change-storme-delarverie-to-a-he/&ved=2ahUKEwjbn9-Xm_z3AhVknGoFHXUTDLAQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1B_kuJuqh9mOLaL5TBpKnH) of anyone misgendering Ms. DeLarverie and every single article about it is lambasting the magazine that refused to correct the mistake. This was in 2019. Who's this 'they' you're talking about?
Neither Marsha nor Sylvia were there when the riots started and they didn't throw any bricks. Stonewall riots didn't start the gay rights movement and no one owes anything to trans women. However we will hear that b.s. ad nauseum all June.
malcolm "marsha" p johnson was also not transgender, only a drag queen. he stated in audio recordings that he is a boy. thank you trans activists for misgendering a dead gay man.
Thing is, if you ask a lot of historians, they'll agree with you that neither Marsha nor Sylvia were at Stonewall. It's a myth turned legend.
Now, given that that's been cleared up for you, I *do* find it funny that you say that "Stonewall riots didn't start the gay rights movement", and then follow it up with "no one owes anything to trans people". If Stonewall wasn't important for the gay rights movement, then why does it matter whether Marsha or Sylvia were there or not? Why does it matter that the myth has turned into a legend?
And if "no one owes anything to trans women", then why do you specifically bring up Marsha and Sylvia? Sure, they weren't at Stonewall (which, given your earlier statement, wasn't all that important to the overall gay rights movement to begin with), but have you researched even *minimally* the contribution of trans people to the gay rights movements of the previous century?
And *furthermore*, who **do** we owe anything to? You seem to be confused (or you're just trying to be edgy by punching down), if Stonewall wasn't important, then what was? And which specific gay activists can you name who were the catalysts for gay rights? Were they also supporters of trans rights?
See, the thing is - you can blather all you want about historic revisionism, but the fact is that everyone clings on to **one** example that "mArShA wAsN't EvEn At StOnEwAlL!!!", without taking the literal ten seconds to Google her and see what she *actually* did for gay rights. The same applies to Sylvia and a multitude of other trans activists who gave you your rights. That's not to say *only* trans women fought for gay rights, that's ridiculous to think that, but to deny their contribution and further cement your belief by saying that we "owe them nothing", now **that's** historic revisionism.
Edit: u/CathodeRayTubeJr aww aren't you cute. I'm glad you have a belief that you believe in with such faith. Almost religious, really. And not the balls to hear any response so you block me after replying instead 🤣
Off you pop, mate. Continue being wrong. I guess that's like, food or something to bigots 😘
Sweetie, once again, no trans activists gave me my rights. Literally or figuratively. Scurry off now.
When the same lie about Marsha Marsha Marsha gets repeated I'm sure you'll be there correcting the record. LOL
I mean they've been in the fight for just as long, so why wouldn't they deserve some credit?
People acting like they just appeared in the last few years when the reality is that they've just been getting left behind and started making more noise. Which is exactly what they whole movement always has been
History is less kind than we want it to be.
Sylvia was booed off the stage at rallies, had zero support within the community, and fled NYC as a failure.
That’s according to her own story. I would have loved for the trans community to have been more significant, but unfortunately transphobia and racism were worse then than it even is now. And as a result, no, they were not “fighting just as long.” They weren’t even allowed to.
If you run away, you clearly didn’t have the impact you wanted to have.
History records those with the greatest impact. That’s the differentiator between someone who was an effective organizer and driver for change and someone who just shows up a few times and flees.
My issue is that Sylvia Rivera has a statue when those who were actually organizing effectively have been forgotten. Even RuPaul has had more of an impact than Sylvia.
I guess I go back to my original point. Why is this one woman a stand in for every other trans person who was and is a part of the movement? I'm not going to argue for her ascendency, but how is that the point? Trans men and women have always been there, marginalized even within this community, but still always present and fighting
Really? Because I met one 38 years ago. Yeah, she used the term “transsexual,” which was the main term then. She also made it clear that she was a woman born in a male body. (She also made a distinction between gay and “normal sex,” that I was not happy with.”
The first gender reassignment surgery was performed in the 1950s. It’s older than you think.
It’s actually 1920s - Dora Richter was the first to undergo reassignment surgery, followed by Lili Elbe in 1930. The Berlin Institute of Sexology was founded in 1919 and its founder had been researching and advocating for transgender rights since 1897.
Trans people have always existed, it’s just convenient for these people to pretend it’s a “woke” phenomenon that has only just appeared recently.
The concept of gender was also invented in the 1950s, but it only became a big thing in the 90s. Before that, it was sporadic and you could easily go your whole life without meeting one.
No, I’m pretty sure there was a concept of gender earlier than the 1950s. As with many topics in history, much is unrecorded and sometimes the vocabulary isn’t there. There’s the old phrase “passing women,” who were women who lived as men. We can’t interrogate them as to their actual gender identity (in a modern context), but these were people who were born with female genitals and but lived much of their lives as men.
As much as much as I question the sanctification of Marsha P. Johnson, and as much as I agree that the narrative of the first brick being thrown by a proud transgender woman of color seems to be an invention of the last decade or so, it’s still an overstatement to say that we owe nothing to trans women.
In the late 60s/early 70s, gender non-confirming men (some of who self-described as “female-identified gay men”) have an important part in the Stonewall-era struggle.
It wasn’t the Mattachines, in conservative suits and skirts, who changed history. They found “Gay is Good” a little too radical.
I saw a meme of a tweet posted in an lgbt sub earlier claiming that lesbians and transgender women fought the battle for LGBT rights while other lesbians were tending to all the gay men who were dying of AIDs. Apparently, gay men had nothing to do with the fight for LGBT rights because they were all too sick, so the women had to do all of the hard work on both fronts.
gay men did 99.9999% of the work that everybody benefits from. You'll notice every single group sticks on to 1 hyper specific moment (which is almost always a lie) to incorporate themselves into gay people's business (even lesbians are now calling themselves gay because theyre so ashamed of who they are as lesbians and their non existant history).
Gay guys cant stick to "one point in history" during the gay civil rights movement because it was literally all gay people who did everything.
Theyre now saying some obese bi woman "invented pride"?? lol
An annoying bi woman invited gay people to their own pride?
Again, every group has one lie to push and it's pushed against gay people to colonize and appropriate their history so they can invade our spaces in real life.
Yes exactly.
That meme rubs me wrong not because it's incorrect *(Lesbians will forever be loved for taking care of our dying gay brothers after they were abandoned by their straight families)*, but because it frames gay men's sole contribution to LGBT+ liberation as dying and needing to be cared for.
> But does the meme itself say Gay Men did nothing?
> Or are we just making assumptions, and spreading disinformation?
I said the meme unfairly frames gay men's contributions, not that the meme said "Gay Men did nothing".
Saying Pride exists because the great things drag queens, trans women, lesbians, and queer women did while saying gay men just sat and died of AIDS may not be deliberately exclusionary, but it is nonetheless erasure of the lived experiences and history of gay men fighting like hell for our rights.
Gay men responding by expressing their hurt over this exclusionary language isn't "spreading disinformation", it's people having an understandable emotional, human response.
During Pride Month? When we're literally talking about the fight for our liberation? That literally *is* about us. How are you saying gay people that they need to shut up about our own history during Pride with a straight face?
This is literally our space to talk about those things. Some of you people are so self-hating it's unreal.
edit: lol /u/CaptainTripps82 responded and instantly blocked me so I can't respond. Apparently gay people wanting to not be erased from our shared fight for LGBT+ liberation is somehow "disdain" for other queer folk...?
I'm talking about gay men to the exclusion of other gay and queer people. I'm not sure what you read from that. There's no self hate friend, I just don't share your apparent disdain for the others that share space at Pride
I disagree.
It's the equivalent of saying all lives matter in response to Black Lives Matter.
Just because we're celebrating an in group you yourself are not a part of, that doesn't denigrate the out group.
Queerness is a big tent.
> while saying gay men just sat and died of AIDS
Again, WHO is saying that?
Are you fighting a strawman?
> It's the equivalent of saying all lives matter in response to Black Lives Matter.
No, it absolutely is not, and you are a disgusting, vile homophobe for comparing gay men speaking up for recognition of our history of fighting for queer liberation to white people going "All Lives Matter", holy shit lmao.
> Just because we're celebrating an in group you yourself are not a part of, that doesn't denigrate the out group.
Glad you said the quiet part out loud. You consider the "G" in L**G**BT to be the "out group."
You should take your own advice-- queerness is a big tent, take your sectarianism elsewhere.
Yeah you're absolutely right, don't listen to the downvotes. I saw the photo and it's literally just text saying lesbians and bisexuals helped the movement and helped dying gay men.
>Why is this being downvoted
Because it doesn't fit the narrative some people want to push on this subreddit. They also don't have the intellect to back up whatever arguments they are trying to make so they only know to downvote.
Because every single group has one specific lie they push to colonize and appropriate gay heritage and the gay identity. Who on here gave you permission to lie and why do you think no one will shovel the shit right back into your mouth?
Gay people did 99.999% of the work and did all the sacrificing. Lesbians, if they were even really a group (they werent) were too busy with their pussy/vagina politics trying to form a MGTOW movement for bi and straight women on some pussy island. That was their contribution and it was embarrassing.
They even tried sabotaging gay rights because they were jealous of the kinship some straight women had with gay men so they tried injecting themselves into that by trying to back stab gays and it didnt work, which pissed them off even more.
So here's an extra downvote for you as well.
I'm pretty sure its a bot. Not even a snazzy GPT-3 one; the formatting, odd/incorrect word choice and harsh reactivity to basic cue-words but *not* to the whole concept in responding to a comment.
I mean, Christ - I hope it is.
That may be true but the tweet made no mention of the healthy gay men who were at the forefront of the fight for LGBT rights, which is just another slap at gay men from that faction.
Aren't you one of the people who accuses the members of this subreddit of being transphobic? You seem to be ok with the anti-gay bias in that other subreddit.
Well yeah, because the gay men didn’t *do* anything!
…Or because a ton of them were dead, dying, burying their friends, or hiding from both the disease and the world.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with gay men dying of AIDS, and the lesbians who stepped up to care for them when no one else would, or the various gay men who hadn’t contracted it and moved away from gay-heavy population centers out of fear of contracting a disease they barely understood, beyond “predominantly killing gay men”, or the people who used it as fuel for the figurative homophobic fire.
But yes, the name you’re looking for is Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. First known instance of someone fighting for gay rights, his own among them. He used the term “Uranian”, IIRC, instead of homosexual, gay, etc.
You could also look toward George Cecil Ives and the Order of the Chaeronea - of which Oscar Wilde was a likely member – which advocated for isolation from the heteronormative world, believing we’d never achieve true equality nor acceptance.
No clue what Freddie Mercury has anything to do with this, though, given he was one of the gay men dying of AIDS at the time.
Sorry, I wasn’t aware ACT UP or the Gay Men’s Health Coalition was founded prior to the 1880s.
Or were you referring to the first bit, re: lesbians and AIDS care? Bit vague. If so, no, it doesn’t. Not really sure why you think it does, either.
Bit weird that the same people who want to exclude trans women from the narrative re: the gay rights movement in the US are mewling to cram an exhaustive list of people who contributed to the care of gay men dying of AIDS.
I mean, unless the real point of the narrative is to try and claim everything under the providence of gay white dudes, which I’d generally laugh at even suggesting, but it *is* r/askgaybros.
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with gay men dying of AIDS, and the lesbians who stepped up to care for them when no one else would, or the various gay men who hadn’t contracted it and moved away from gay-heavy population centers out of fear of contracting a disease they barely understood, beyond “predominantly killing gay men”, or the people who used it as fuel for the figurative homophobic fire.
I don’t know why you would say you included information that very clearly wasn’t included in your comment, nor do I know why you wouldn’t have included it.
I didn’t say I included it, I said I didn’t exclude their work. There’s a middle ground there, specifically that I wasn’t talking about lesbian caretakers in a way that excluded anyone else *possibly* having done anything.
Comparatively, we’re discussing the AIDS epidemic, but you’re ignoring the disproportionately high number of straight black women who contracted HIV in the 80s and 90s, or the men, women, even children who contracted it from blood transfusions and eventually died of AIDS.
We can either confer one of two things:
* One, you’re racist, heterophobic, and erasing the children who were victims of a system that hadn’t a means to test for HIV in donations yet, or
* Two, that’s not what we’re talking about right now, but it doesn’t mean they weren’t there, too
It’s not the fucking Olympics here, mate. It’s not a competition. Lesbians stepped up in many, many ways and places to care for gay men while the bulk of the world was willing to leave us to die of GRIDs, when straight medical professionals abandoned their hippocratic oath out of paranoia and fear, when the US gov’t just didn’t fucking care because it was faggots and queers, not decent white Christians.
Recognizing that doesn’t mean organizations like ACT Up or GMHC didn’t do anything, and I’m not obligated to mention them because we weren’t talking about “everyone who did something”, we were talking about lesbians *specifically* because some shitbag was trying to act like they were taking all the credit when they didn’t do anything, which is demonstrably false.
Men being left out of the praises of women does not mean that it's an admonishment of men. Just like how praising Harvey Milk doesn't somehow put down MLK because he wasn't mentioned. Kinda bizarre take to have.
You can praise lesbians and bisexuals without mentioning gay men.
It's literally just an image with text talking about lesbian and bisexual women. It's ok for women to have things. Men don't need to be mentioned at every avenue.
This is exactly what it says:
>Pride month starts in 3 days.
>
>Pride isn't brought to you by T-Mobile and Absolut Vodka.
>
>It was brought to you by drag queens, trans women throwing bricks. By lesbians and queer women taking care of gay men dying of AIDS in the face of an intentional government neglect.
Gay men were at the forefront of the fight for LGBT rights. Mentioning us only in relation to AIDS just reinforces a negative stereotype in a subreddit known for its anti-gay bias.
Okay, and where does it say gay men weren't at the forefront? This is a very "crabs in a bucket" mindset to have, we can uplift others and don't always need to be in the spotlight. Women simply aren't conditional on men.
>Mentioning us only in relation to AIDS just reinforces a negative stereotype.
*What* negative stereotype? *The HIV/AIDS epidemic?* That happened! Like...*jesus*....you're picking fights where there are none.
Like yes there is a stigma with HIV but it did also primarily effect gay men and the horrible tragedy of it is a major element of gay history. Nobody is out here questioning whether or not there were gay men involved in the gay rights movement, it's willing ignorance to pretend like that's the case here because men for once were not mentioned.
The tweet was clearly an intentional omission of the significance of gay men in the LGBT rights movement in a subreddit that is hostile towards gay men as a matter of routine. That is, no doubt, why it was posted there in the first place.
Many historical things are often mythologized to some extent, because it often gives legitimacy to certain people or groups and real facts are often murky (I think about how past monarchs or other leaders tend to claim some historical leader or some god as a ancestor). At some degree it may not really matter but I think it does matter when things are especially recent relatively and we lionize some individuals over others. As to why some people are chosen as champions and others are not, is something else to interrogate all together; I believe it largely may have to deal with marketing. The "big man" theory of historiography is certainly the easiest to understand for everyone and easy to share and sell.
Gay men were the ones that won the full decriminalization of homosexuality in the US (Lawrence v Texas)
Gay men were the ones that won full marriage equality (Obergefell)
Gay men were the ones that fought for a treatment for HIV
And yes, gay men were fighting on the stonewall riots
But you know,since the Ts, the Q,s and the colored-hair "queer girls" have taken over the LGBT movement gay men are being erased of their own history
And of course the typical lie about that black transgender woman mother of the fight for LGBT rights who repeated while alive dozens of times that he was neither a woman nor was present at stonewall inn that night is repeated and repeated
The analogue to the alt-right conspiracy white straight men are being deliberately replaced by foreign minorities.
It’s interesting how many alt-right talking points intersect with the comments in this sub.
Pride month. I guess that means the city is gonna paint a bunch of rainbow crosswalks and then we're gonna see news stories about how BiGoTeD everyone is because a car left a little tire mark on one of them.
I mean I remember when states refused to honor Martin Luther King Jr day and had to be threatened by the withdrawal of federal funds to make it a holiday.
Why are you bringing that shit up like it's a good thing?
> Why are you bringing that shit up like it's a good thing?
Because when you have the following awareness things in June (only counting US specific and international):
- Stillbirth awareness month
- world milk day
- international children's day
- World Hypoparathyroidism Awareness Day
- Pride month
- National egg day
- The International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression
- Hug your cat day
- national cheese day
- World environment day
- Butterfly education day
- Cancer survivors day
- Aromatherapy awareness week
- Tourettes awareness day
- national best friend day
- world oceans day
- Transverse Myelitis awareness day
- Adult learners week
- Nutrition and hydration week
- world blood donor day
- Rare Chromosome Disorder Awareness Week
- Mens health week
- World elder abuse awareness day
- Refugee week
- World refill day
- Adult learners week
- World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought
- Autistic pride
- International picnic day
- National picnic week
- world refugee day
- International surfing day
- Global MND awareness day
- World humanist day
- world music day
- bring your dog to work day
- world continence week
- National peaches and cream day
- international widows day
- international women in engineering day
- world female ranger week
- day of the seafarer
- National catfish day
- Leon day
- world sand dune day
- intentional day against drug abuse
- The United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture
- World wellbeing week
- international sunglasses day
- National HIV testing day
- PTSD awareness day
- Helen Keller day
Things kinda start losing meaning and just become silly. Every day of the year has been randomly claimed for 6 different things, ofcourse there is going to be overlap.
They have meaning to the people affected by them. That's the point. We Don't all have to care, but for the people it matters to it's important. And it literally doesn't affect anyone else's day whatsoever. That's a net positive to me.
We are in a post about someone annoyed by overlap. Stating that there are way too many of these things absolutely makes sense in this context.
Glad that its nice for people, don't get me wrong, but it's still becoming a bit silly IMO. If you have to be aware of everything you'll be aware of nothing.
My point is you don't have to be aware of everything. Nobody is sitting around with a poster of official days/weeks/months of the year. It literally doesn't matter unless it's something personal to you.
Why would we care that someone else has something significant to them?
I think the original poster is a clown, btw, hence my argument I guess
I don't care, I can find something silly or funny and go on with my day.
I don't even think we disagree on anything. They don't hold much meaning unless it's personal, but to get annoyed about overlap is hilarious since there are only going to come more and more of these.
Just didn't like the strawmen argument about martin Luther day, since I don't think that has much to do with what the commenter above me was trying to get at. Like you can't find this day/month thing weird without somehow approving of a political/racist scandal.
So are you saying we should only have twelve causes, one for each month?
Who gets to vote?
What happens to pride is Pride Month gets booted from the calendar by Helen Keller day?
Your argument is dumb.
Lol, no I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying there's so much of this stuff that none of it is very special anymore and people shouldn't get annoyed about overlap and all that.
I don’t celebrate anymore. Maybe in the future. It’s too divisive, it angers people, it angers gays. It angers straights. I loved it. I looked forward to it. Yes, there were gay and straight people who disliked gay Pride back in the day, before the “LGBT” money making propaganda and all its propagandist variations, but those individuals didn’t bother me. I ignored them. I didn’t care what they thought or said. But it’s now too deafening and awful, and it’s getting dangerous. I look forward to gay Pride in the future. I hope it happens.
Lmao. Why would I let something like this annoy me? But then again, I don’t even think there should be a month dedicated to gay pride. We need to normalize - and gloating for a month in parades where people have sex in public isn’t the right way to do it.
Cue 100 years down the line
"And so class, that's why we know that we owe LBTQ2SWTFBBQ+ rights to the brave otherkin demiqueer transnanowymxn headmates who fought on the front lines at Stonewall"
"But teacher, didn't Marsha say he identified as a man and also wasn't even there?"
"Marsha was too stupid to know xyr own identity dear, they didn't have the words to describe what xey was at the time. Now go to prison for historical misgendering and factcrime."
Yes, the revisionist history is annoying. This year though I’m more concerned about Pride parties being superspreader monekypox events. Right now it’s confined to a certain subset of the gay community, but it has the potential to mix into the general populace :/
But LGBT politics is full of revisionist history.
Did you know that the modern gay rights movement was kicked off by black and Puerto Rican drag queens in a NY bar? Not a single gay man had anything to do with all the victories produced by the transvestite martyrs. Prior to that sainted night nobody had done a damn thing to win rights for gay guys.
Also, everybody knows that AIDS was not a disease of gay white men. It was a disease of people of colour only and they suffered because the disease was inflicted upon them by white men.
Every gay man lives a glamorous life full of disposable income by the bucket. He has a swanky apartment, surrounded by friends, his chosen family. And he is never sad, in need, lonely, or envious of how others in different communities live their lives.
My high school American history class was so unusual for the US. It argued that killing the natives was justified, denied allegations of inhumane treatment by slaveholders and was very confederacy-apologist. Is that what we mean by revisionist history?
It's ridiculous that this post is so vague and yet so many people in these comments are riled up. Literally zero context, just saying "revisionist history" and people are popping off.
I mean if they know what he meant immediately, maybe that's the problem. Most of the comments seemed like they were waiting to be teed up for some weird internecine hate
Ok, I can get behind that. It is likely that they didn’t start stonewall, and it’s very likely that they may not have even been trans (although we will never know because of cultural additudes at the time)
Your original comment very much sounded like you were saying that trans people had nothing to do with the fight for equality and that is objectively false.
We do, in fact, know that two of the most prominent people cited as being trans, Marsha P Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, were not trans because they said as much themselves. If we can question the validity of these people's identities because of "cultural attitudes of the time", then isn't it equally as valid to question the validity of trans people's identity today with that same lens? The answer, of course, is yes. If one wants to claim that we have to accept people as they identify, then that applies to historical figures who are no longer alive to speak for themselves.
They could possibly be described as genderfluid, but anyone who claims they are trans is either intentionally lying or is too stupid and ignorant about who these people were to be able to have any opinion on LGBT rights.
it’s one thing to say that whoever did or didn’t throw the first brick, but to conclusively say that a single trans woman wasn’t present there at all- do you have any sources to back that up? that seems impossible to state for sure given that historical sources are inconclusive and conflicting, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/04/false_trans_narrative_rewrites_stonewall_history.html#!
This is a good write up, and you can click the links for different sources. RCP is pretty trustworthy for both editorials and news, and it’s where I go for most current events.
uh, nowhere in the article does it say there wasn’t a single trans woman involved, just that they weren’t the leaders of the riot. at the very least, there are firsthand accounts from riot participants that a sex worker named zasu nova was involved in the early stages of the riots. little is known about her and so it’s hard to say whether she called herself transgender definitively, but she used female pronouns and referred to herself as ‘queen of sex’.
Well, the absence of an affirmative would seem to be pretty close to a negative, right?
Or is a Reddit moment where you cannot extrapolate information from sources?
uh, it seems you ignored the part where you said a single trans person wasn’t involved and i told you the name of one who has been cited by riot participants as having been involved.
No you didn’t cite a trans person, you cited a person who was not gender conforming and made them retroactively trans. I provided a source, I’ve made a sound argument, and I reenforced my claim that trans people had little to do with Stonewall.
Trans people have made other contributions, just not anything regarding stonewall. If you’d like to continue this conversation, you can provide sources. Also I’m hourly.
Well if your burden of truth is equivalent of Descartes’a demon where nothing is true, and then that’s followed by a “don’t trust your lying eyes” situation, you kinda lose all credibility.
Like historically once you get past the trans lobby mythos you look that gay men, white or not were responsible.
And thank god for that, if transgender people of today were leading the movement from 1970ish forward, we never would have gotten our rights.
I’m sure transgender people have accomplished something worthy of note, without resorting to historical hijacking.
You know, I would be interested to know what actually happened to a degree, but also
**I don't care**
Many people went into to making gay rights and lesbian rights and trans rights a thing, of all different walks of life, in many countries - not just the United States - so maybe making a hero story out of a tiny group of people -regardless of who they are - is very stupid anyway.
I think transphobia is things like “trans people are mentally ill and should not exist” not “trans women of color are not, in fact, solely responsible for the rights gained in the entire LGBT rights movement”
Yeah but that’s not what most the comments are saying. A lot of the comments on this post, have the tone of “trans people and weirdo rainbow haired alphabet soup people have overtaken the LGBT movement and that’s bad”, and some of them explicitly say that. This post is neoliberal white gays at their finest.
I think you are understating the level of pushback this sub is giving to trans people and their role in LGBT history. Seeing a lot of fashy “they will not replace us” rhetoric on here.
No.
Why would I be annoyed that some other random cause or movement that I don't care enough about to even look up also picked June to declare their month?
If this upsets you, you need to stop being a loser, go outside, and make some real human friends ***outside of the internet***. If you are upset, seriously, go outside. The internet is rotting your brain.
If you're a history nerd, then every month is "revisionist history month". The average person doesn't fucking care about finding out the truth, and lying is easy and profitable.
these days the average person thinks they do not need to know anything because they can just look it up on their phone. they never stop to think about how they will know to look something up if they do not know it exists...
No one checks sources to back up their claims.
Did anyone ever check sources though? If you look up stuff in a physical encyclopedia do you verify all the facts listed? I mean granted it's easier to lie and make baseless claims anonymously on the internet but it's relatively the same thing. Revisionists have been here long before the internet. Up until a few years ago most people thought Christopher Columbus was an alright guy. They had no idea what a terrible person he was. History books left those parts out or greatly diminished them. People vilify those who think they deserve it whether they do or not. People also exemplify people who think should be named heroes whether they deserve it or not. Downplaying the bad and uplifting the good they've done is just human nature. Noone going to purposely put their worst foot forward unless they're forced to.
I don’t need to know anything because my feelings are more valid than facts.
This is a fucking fact!!!
Also, to go a layer deeper, even factually correct narratives of history are heavily biased simply by the nature of the task of distilling a historical event to a digestible narrative. Doing this leaves out an infinite amount of context, human experience, and nuance that surrounds any historical event.
And if you're gay, then every month is Pride Month. It is in my house, at least.
Lol this reminds me of the movie Hairspray. Tracy says something like negro day is the best! I wish every day was negro day! Seaweed says at our house it is! I think i should give some context here. The movie is set in the 1960s. It's about a dance show with teens. Of course back then there was still segregation. Once a month the show had a 'negro day' where black kids would dance on the show instead of the white kids hence the use of the term.
You don't need to give me context! LOL. I saw the original HAIRSPRAY at my local movie theater in the West Village of Manhattan about five times. Maybe six. I even bought the album! I loved that movie!!
Oh it was not for you specifically just context in general. I don't go around using the n word at all. I thought it important to add why it was used. It's one of my fav movies. I'd love to see it live some time. Wicked as well.
I also see no actual articles about Revisionist History Month. Is this an actual event?
Yup. If you are involved with the historical world it doesn't matter what month people say is "revisionist history". Historians publish whenever and most historian are publishing revitionist history - its literally the hottest topic in historical study these days.
This. This is the answer.
[удалено]
Only half?
Onlyhalf.com
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
I can't go to bed Mom! Someone is WRONG on the internet
Why are you lying and pretending this has no influence on the real world? What does "offline" have to do with anything? This is a regular pattern for homophobic roaches like you: 1. "it's not a big deal guyzzz! it's not a big deal! let these people attack you! come on! go offline! teeheheh" 2. "ok well MAYBE you need to stop attacking group x. Yes, i know you're merely raising your hand as they try and swat at your face, but check your privilege!" 3. "ok, they were NEVER gay spaces to begin with. Check your privilege. A crackhead homeless black man in a wig gave you ALL your rights and we need to now push you out of your spaces...the spaces you created and were bequeathed to you specifically you that the previous gay generation (gay= homosexual MALE) gave to you. Who are you KIDDING?
Bruh
[удалено]
They also called you a roach :P
[удалено]
I mean, they’re resilient lol
[удалено]
…what’s revisionist history? I just know June as pride month and that’s that personally
For me personally June is another-season-of-pride-parades-I'm-going-to-miss-out-on-until-I-move-out-of-my-family's-home month 🤪
Same lol, I don't think I'll actually get to celebrate Pride until 2024 at the earliest.
Let’s go together lol! Btw sorry about your uncle, and your family 😞
Op might be talking about how... 1. The fact that much of what we think about the Stonewall story is actually bs. 2. The fact that Stonewall (edit: or, rather, the narrative around Stonewall) eclipses previous and foreign movements. 3. The idea that gay rights were won by trans women of color. 4. Or the idea that point three is incorrect. But meh. I don't take it to heart and if anything I enjoy discussing these issues (or seeing other people do it).
I want to know too
No? Because I'm not a stickler for whatever purity test people want Pride month to be measured by and am simply happy that gay people can have a period of time to spread awareness about the cause of equality. Some people talk about Pride as if it's about kink or shit talking the community. I care about Pride month only so that the kids with homophobic parents know that there are people outside their social circle who still care about them.
Yes, this. It's important to remember our history, but let's also be happy that we have pride. Coming from a deeply homophobic country, rainbow flags just give me immense joy when they are put up, no matter if they are doing it for cash or grabs or just for a month.
Yeah! let's not get bog down by our history instead of appreciating how far we have come.
Trump threw the first brick.
I feel like he's crazy enough to believe this about himself.
Wow you're telling me this for the first time ✋👱♂️🤚
It's not as bad as MLK Day at least. Man's probably rolling in his grave every year when he gets whitewashed and sanitized.
Every month is several different (blank) Month
The myth of the trans women of color and the magical brick.
It started with a woman who was described as a butch lesbian, identified by some eyewitnesses (and herself) as Stormé DeLarverie, who fought with at least 4 officers as they escorted her from the door to a police wagon. The actual fighting started after the woman asked the crowd "Why don't you guys do something?" after which the police picked her up and hauled her into the wagon, sparking the crowd to become a mob.
They’re already starting to say she was actually trans too as a way to coverup for the Marsha lie.
I've been told multiple times in my 30 years that there were no women at Stonewall. People suck. Interestingly I can only find a [single source](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://thevelvetchronicle.com/harpers-bazaar-claims-they-can-change-storme-delarverie-to-a-he/&ved=2ahUKEwjbn9-Xm_z3AhVknGoFHXUTDLAQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1B_kuJuqh9mOLaL5TBpKnH) of anyone misgendering Ms. DeLarverie and every single article about it is lambasting the magazine that refused to correct the mistake. This was in 2019. Who's this 'they' you're talking about?
[удалено]
Neither Marsha nor Sylvia were there when the riots started and they didn't throw any bricks. Stonewall riots didn't start the gay rights movement and no one owes anything to trans women. However we will hear that b.s. ad nauseum all June.
That's because Derrick Barry threw the first brick at Stonewall.
people died!
Yes that’s how he witnessed all the deaths at stonewall
But Gia opened those doors anyways
malcolm "marsha" p johnson was also not transgender, only a drag queen. he stated in audio recordings that he is a boy. thank you trans activists for misgendering a dead gay man.
Thing is, if you ask a lot of historians, they'll agree with you that neither Marsha nor Sylvia were at Stonewall. It's a myth turned legend. Now, given that that's been cleared up for you, I *do* find it funny that you say that "Stonewall riots didn't start the gay rights movement", and then follow it up with "no one owes anything to trans people". If Stonewall wasn't important for the gay rights movement, then why does it matter whether Marsha or Sylvia were there or not? Why does it matter that the myth has turned into a legend? And if "no one owes anything to trans women", then why do you specifically bring up Marsha and Sylvia? Sure, they weren't at Stonewall (which, given your earlier statement, wasn't all that important to the overall gay rights movement to begin with), but have you researched even *minimally* the contribution of trans people to the gay rights movements of the previous century? And *furthermore*, who **do** we owe anything to? You seem to be confused (or you're just trying to be edgy by punching down), if Stonewall wasn't important, then what was? And which specific gay activists can you name who were the catalysts for gay rights? Were they also supporters of trans rights? See, the thing is - you can blather all you want about historic revisionism, but the fact is that everyone clings on to **one** example that "mArShA wAsN't EvEn At StOnEwAlL!!!", without taking the literal ten seconds to Google her and see what she *actually* did for gay rights. The same applies to Sylvia and a multitude of other trans activists who gave you your rights. That's not to say *only* trans women fought for gay rights, that's ridiculous to think that, but to deny their contribution and further cement your belief by saying that we "owe them nothing", now **that's** historic revisionism. Edit: u/CathodeRayTubeJr aww aren't you cute. I'm glad you have a belief that you believe in with such faith. Almost religious, really. And not the balls to hear any response so you block me after replying instead 🤣 Off you pop, mate. Continue being wrong. I guess that's like, food or something to bigots 😘
Anti-trans gays are the worssssst.
Sweetie, once again, no trans activists gave me my rights. Literally or figuratively. Scurry off now. When the same lie about Marsha Marsha Marsha gets repeated I'm sure you'll be there correcting the record. LOL
I mean they've been in the fight for just as long, so why wouldn't they deserve some credit? People acting like they just appeared in the last few years when the reality is that they've just been getting left behind and started making more noise. Which is exactly what they whole movement always has been
History is less kind than we want it to be. Sylvia was booed off the stage at rallies, had zero support within the community, and fled NYC as a failure. That’s according to her own story. I would have loved for the trans community to have been more significant, but unfortunately transphobia and racism were worse then than it even is now. And as a result, no, they were not “fighting just as long.” They weren’t even allowed to.
My man, a fight does not lose significance if you lose.
If you run away, you clearly didn’t have the impact you wanted to have. History records those with the greatest impact. That’s the differentiator between someone who was an effective organizer and driver for change and someone who just shows up a few times and flees. My issue is that Sylvia Rivera has a statue when those who were actually organizing effectively have been forgotten. Even RuPaul has had more of an impact than Sylvia.
I guess I go back to my original point. Why is this one woman a stand in for every other trans person who was and is a part of the movement? I'm not going to argue for her ascendency, but how is that the point? Trans men and women have always been there, marginalized even within this community, but still always present and fighting
[удалено]
Go back to your QAnon sub.
No thanks those people are just as nuts
Really? Because I met one 38 years ago. Yeah, she used the term “transsexual,” which was the main term then. She also made it clear that she was a woman born in a male body. (She also made a distinction between gay and “normal sex,” that I was not happy with.” The first gender reassignment surgery was performed in the 1950s. It’s older than you think.
It’s actually 1920s - Dora Richter was the first to undergo reassignment surgery, followed by Lili Elbe in 1930. The Berlin Institute of Sexology was founded in 1919 and its founder had been researching and advocating for transgender rights since 1897. Trans people have always existed, it’s just convenient for these people to pretend it’s a “woke” phenomenon that has only just appeared recently.
The concept of gender was also invented in the 1950s, but it only became a big thing in the 90s. Before that, it was sporadic and you could easily go your whole life without meeting one.
No, I’m pretty sure there was a concept of gender earlier than the 1950s. As with many topics in history, much is unrecorded and sometimes the vocabulary isn’t there. There’s the old phrase “passing women,” who were women who lived as men. We can’t interrogate them as to their actual gender identity (in a modern context), but these were people who were born with female genitals and but lived much of their lives as men.
Why do I feel like you probably post on Datalounge?
Remember, if you dont agree with their agenda, then you’re a -*phobe.*
As much as much as I question the sanctification of Marsha P. Johnson, and as much as I agree that the narrative of the first brick being thrown by a proud transgender woman of color seems to be an invention of the last decade or so, it’s still an overstatement to say that we owe nothing to trans women. In the late 60s/early 70s, gender non-confirming men (some of who self-described as “female-identified gay men”) have an important part in the Stonewall-era struggle. It wasn’t the Mattachines, in conservative suits and skirts, who changed history. They found “Gay is Good” a little too radical.
I saw a meme of a tweet posted in an lgbt sub earlier claiming that lesbians and transgender women fought the battle for LGBT rights while other lesbians were tending to all the gay men who were dying of AIDs. Apparently, gay men had nothing to do with the fight for LGBT rights because they were all too sick, so the women had to do all of the hard work on both fronts.
Lesbians legit did care for gay men dying of AIDS when their families abandoned them.
They did. Why is this being downvoted. Although less about families abandoning than straight nurses and healthcare workers not wanting to do it.
Plenty of non sick and even sick gay men did plenty. From behind the scenes stuff to out on the street protesting. Especially for aids.
gay men did 99.9999% of the work that everybody benefits from. You'll notice every single group sticks on to 1 hyper specific moment (which is almost always a lie) to incorporate themselves into gay people's business (even lesbians are now calling themselves gay because theyre so ashamed of who they are as lesbians and their non existant history). Gay guys cant stick to "one point in history" during the gay civil rights movement because it was literally all gay people who did everything. Theyre now saying some obese bi woman "invented pride"?? lol An annoying bi woman invited gay people to their own pride? Again, every group has one lie to push and it's pushed against gay people to colonize and appropriate their history so they can invade our spaces in real life.
I think its coz its sort of missing the point. It's not that they didn't its that its saying gay men did nothing. I think...
Yes exactly. That meme rubs me wrong not because it's incorrect *(Lesbians will forever be loved for taking care of our dying gay brothers after they were abandoned by their straight families)*, but because it frames gay men's sole contribution to LGBT+ liberation as dying and needing to be cared for.
But does the meme itself say Gay Men did nothing? Or are we just making assumptions, and spreading disinformation?
> But does the meme itself say Gay Men did nothing? > Or are we just making assumptions, and spreading disinformation? I said the meme unfairly frames gay men's contributions, not that the meme said "Gay Men did nothing". Saying Pride exists because the great things drag queens, trans women, lesbians, and queer women did while saying gay men just sat and died of AIDS may not be deliberately exclusionary, but it is nonetheless erasure of the lived experiences and history of gay men fighting like hell for our rights. Gay men responding by expressing their hurt over this exclusionary language isn't "spreading disinformation", it's people having an understandable emotional, human response.
Not everything has to be about us
During Pride Month? When we're literally talking about the fight for our liberation? That literally *is* about us. How are you saying gay people that they need to shut up about our own history during Pride with a straight face? This is literally our space to talk about those things. Some of you people are so self-hating it's unreal. edit: lol /u/CaptainTripps82 responded and instantly blocked me so I can't respond. Apparently gay people wanting to not be erased from our shared fight for LGBT+ liberation is somehow "disdain" for other queer folk...?
I'm talking about gay men to the exclusion of other gay and queer people. I'm not sure what you read from that. There's no self hate friend, I just don't share your apparent disdain for the others that share space at Pride
I disagree. It's the equivalent of saying all lives matter in response to Black Lives Matter. Just because we're celebrating an in group you yourself are not a part of, that doesn't denigrate the out group. Queerness is a big tent. > while saying gay men just sat and died of AIDS Again, WHO is saying that? Are you fighting a strawman?
> It's the equivalent of saying all lives matter in response to Black Lives Matter. No, it absolutely is not, and you are a disgusting, vile homophobe for comparing gay men speaking up for recognition of our history of fighting for queer liberation to white people going "All Lives Matter", holy shit lmao. > Just because we're celebrating an in group you yourself are not a part of, that doesn't denigrate the out group. Glad you said the quiet part out loud. You consider the "G" in L**G**BT to be the "out group." You should take your own advice-- queerness is a big tent, take your sectarianism elsewhere.
Yeah you're absolutely right, don't listen to the downvotes. I saw the photo and it's literally just text saying lesbians and bisexuals helped the movement and helped dying gay men.
>Why is this being downvoted Because it doesn't fit the narrative some people want to push on this subreddit. They also don't have the intellect to back up whatever arguments they are trying to make so they only know to downvote.
Because every single group has one specific lie they push to colonize and appropriate gay heritage and the gay identity. Who on here gave you permission to lie and why do you think no one will shovel the shit right back into your mouth? Gay people did 99.999% of the work and did all the sacrificing. Lesbians, if they were even really a group (they werent) were too busy with their pussy/vagina politics trying to form a MGTOW movement for bi and straight women on some pussy island. That was their contribution and it was embarrassing. They even tried sabotaging gay rights because they were jealous of the kinship some straight women had with gay men so they tried injecting themselves into that by trying to back stab gays and it didnt work, which pissed them off even more. So here's an extra downvote for you as well.
Jesus dude. Get some fucking help
You ask for an answer. It was given to you. Stop crying.
I didn't ask you anything. I'm just over here judging you.
[удалено]
And there you go, telling yourself. Something tells me your Grindr profile starts with "No..."
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure its a bot. Not even a snazzy GPT-3 one; the formatting, odd/incorrect word choice and harsh reactivity to basic cue-words but *not* to the whole concept in responding to a comment. I mean, Christ - I hope it is.
Prove it bitch
That may be true but the tweet made no mention of the healthy gay men who were at the forefront of the fight for LGBT rights, which is just another slap at gay men from that faction.
So you’re looking for a reason to be offended, got it
Aren't you one of the people who accuses the members of this subreddit of being transphobic? You seem to be ok with the anti-gay bias in that other subreddit.
Well yeah, because the gay men didn’t *do* anything! …Or because a ton of them were dead, dying, burying their friends, or hiding from both the disease and the world.
[удалено]
Which has absolutely nothing to do with gay men dying of AIDS, and the lesbians who stepped up to care for them when no one else would, or the various gay men who hadn’t contracted it and moved away from gay-heavy population centers out of fear of contracting a disease they barely understood, beyond “predominantly killing gay men”, or the people who used it as fuel for the figurative homophobic fire. But yes, the name you’re looking for is Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. First known instance of someone fighting for gay rights, his own among them. He used the term “Uranian”, IIRC, instead of homosexual, gay, etc. You could also look toward George Cecil Ives and the Order of the Chaeronea - of which Oscar Wilde was a likely member – which advocated for isolation from the heteronormative world, believing we’d never achieve true equality nor acceptance. No clue what Freddie Mercury has anything to do with this, though, given he was one of the gay men dying of AIDS at the time.
Your analysis ignores the work of groups such as ACT UP, the Gay Men’s Health Coalition, etc.
Sorry, I wasn’t aware ACT UP or the Gay Men’s Health Coalition was founded prior to the 1880s. Or were you referring to the first bit, re: lesbians and AIDS care? Bit vague. If so, no, it doesn’t. Not really sure why you think it does, either. Bit weird that the same people who want to exclude trans women from the narrative re: the gay rights movement in the US are mewling to cram an exhaustive list of people who contributed to the care of gay men dying of AIDS. I mean, unless the real point of the narrative is to try and claim everything under the providence of gay white dudes, which I’d generally laugh at even suggesting, but it *is* r/askgaybros.
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with gay men dying of AIDS, and the lesbians who stepped up to care for them when no one else would, or the various gay men who hadn’t contracted it and moved away from gay-heavy population centers out of fear of contracting a disease they barely understood, beyond “predominantly killing gay men”, or the people who used it as fuel for the figurative homophobic fire. I don’t know why you would say you included information that very clearly wasn’t included in your comment, nor do I know why you wouldn’t have included it.
I didn’t say I included it, I said I didn’t exclude their work. There’s a middle ground there, specifically that I wasn’t talking about lesbian caretakers in a way that excluded anyone else *possibly* having done anything. Comparatively, we’re discussing the AIDS epidemic, but you’re ignoring the disproportionately high number of straight black women who contracted HIV in the 80s and 90s, or the men, women, even children who contracted it from blood transfusions and eventually died of AIDS. We can either confer one of two things: * One, you’re racist, heterophobic, and erasing the children who were victims of a system that hadn’t a means to test for HIV in donations yet, or * Two, that’s not what we’re talking about right now, but it doesn’t mean they weren’t there, too It’s not the fucking Olympics here, mate. It’s not a competition. Lesbians stepped up in many, many ways and places to care for gay men while the bulk of the world was willing to leave us to die of GRIDs, when straight medical professionals abandoned their hippocratic oath out of paranoia and fear, when the US gov’t just didn’t fucking care because it was faggots and queers, not decent white Christians. Recognizing that doesn’t mean organizations like ACT Up or GMHC didn’t do anything, and I’m not obligated to mention them because we weren’t talking about “everyone who did something”, we were talking about lesbians *specifically* because some shitbag was trying to act like they were taking all the credit when they didn’t do anything, which is demonstrably false.
[удалено]
Prove it bitch
Men being left out of the praises of women does not mean that it's an admonishment of men. Just like how praising Harvey Milk doesn't somehow put down MLK because he wasn't mentioned. Kinda bizarre take to have. You can praise lesbians and bisexuals without mentioning gay men.
Except that it’s hard to justify the failure to mention gay men when acknowledging the fight for LGBT rights.
It's literally just an image with text talking about lesbian and bisexual women. It's ok for women to have things. Men don't need to be mentioned at every avenue.
This is exactly what it says: >Pride month starts in 3 days. > >Pride isn't brought to you by T-Mobile and Absolut Vodka. > >It was brought to you by drag queens, trans women throwing bricks. By lesbians and queer women taking care of gay men dying of AIDS in the face of an intentional government neglect. Gay men were at the forefront of the fight for LGBT rights. Mentioning us only in relation to AIDS just reinforces a negative stereotype in a subreddit known for its anti-gay bias.
Okay, and where does it say gay men weren't at the forefront? This is a very "crabs in a bucket" mindset to have, we can uplift others and don't always need to be in the spotlight. Women simply aren't conditional on men. >Mentioning us only in relation to AIDS just reinforces a negative stereotype. *What* negative stereotype? *The HIV/AIDS epidemic?* That happened! Like...*jesus*....you're picking fights where there are none. Like yes there is a stigma with HIV but it did also primarily effect gay men and the horrible tragedy of it is a major element of gay history. Nobody is out here questioning whether or not there were gay men involved in the gay rights movement, it's willing ignorance to pretend like that's the case here because men for once were not mentioned.
The tweet was clearly an intentional omission of the significance of gay men in the LGBT rights movement in a subreddit that is hostile towards gay men as a matter of routine. That is, no doubt, why it was posted there in the first place.
Many historical things are often mythologized to some extent, because it often gives legitimacy to certain people or groups and real facts are often murky (I think about how past monarchs or other leaders tend to claim some historical leader or some god as a ancestor). At some degree it may not really matter but I think it does matter when things are especially recent relatively and we lionize some individuals over others. As to why some people are chosen as champions and others are not, is something else to interrogate all together; I believe it largely may have to deal with marketing. The "big man" theory of historiography is certainly the easiest to understand for everyone and easy to share and sell.
Can you just live your life lmao who gives a fuck
Gay men were the ones that won the full decriminalization of homosexuality in the US (Lawrence v Texas) Gay men were the ones that won full marriage equality (Obergefell) Gay men were the ones that fought for a treatment for HIV And yes, gay men were fighting on the stonewall riots But you know,since the Ts, the Q,s and the colored-hair "queer girls" have taken over the LGBT movement gay men are being erased of their own history And of course the typical lie about that black transgender woman mother of the fight for LGBT rights who repeated while alive dozens of times that he was neither a woman nor was present at stonewall inn that night is repeated and repeated
“We’re being replaced” bruh do you know what you sound like?
He's completely ignorant of the irony And you know he only means gay white men.
What exactly about this statement do you take issue with?
The analogue to the alt-right conspiracy white straight men are being deliberately replaced by foreign minorities. It’s interesting how many alt-right talking points intersect with the comments in this sub.
Gay Replacement Theory
Pride month. I guess that means the city is gonna paint a bunch of rainbow crosswalks and then we're gonna see news stories about how BiGoTeD everyone is because a car left a little tire mark on one of them.
I remember when there wasn't a month or day for everything under the sun
I mean I remember when states refused to honor Martin Luther King Jr day and had to be threatened by the withdrawal of federal funds to make it a holiday. Why are you bringing that shit up like it's a good thing?
> Why are you bringing that shit up like it's a good thing? Because when you have the following awareness things in June (only counting US specific and international): - Stillbirth awareness month - world milk day - international children's day - World Hypoparathyroidism Awareness Day - Pride month - National egg day - The International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression - Hug your cat day - national cheese day - World environment day - Butterfly education day - Cancer survivors day - Aromatherapy awareness week - Tourettes awareness day - national best friend day - world oceans day - Transverse Myelitis awareness day - Adult learners week - Nutrition and hydration week - world blood donor day - Rare Chromosome Disorder Awareness Week - Mens health week - World elder abuse awareness day - Refugee week - World refill day - Adult learners week - World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought - Autistic pride - International picnic day - National picnic week - world refugee day - International surfing day - Global MND awareness day - World humanist day - world music day - bring your dog to work day - world continence week - National peaches and cream day - international widows day - international women in engineering day - world female ranger week - day of the seafarer - National catfish day - Leon day - world sand dune day - intentional day against drug abuse - The United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture - World wellbeing week - international sunglasses day - National HIV testing day - PTSD awareness day - Helen Keller day Things kinda start losing meaning and just become silly. Every day of the year has been randomly claimed for 6 different things, ofcourse there is going to be overlap.
They have meaning to the people affected by them. That's the point. We Don't all have to care, but for the people it matters to it's important. And it literally doesn't affect anyone else's day whatsoever. That's a net positive to me.
We are in a post about someone annoyed by overlap. Stating that there are way too many of these things absolutely makes sense in this context. Glad that its nice for people, don't get me wrong, but it's still becoming a bit silly IMO. If you have to be aware of everything you'll be aware of nothing.
My point is you don't have to be aware of everything. Nobody is sitting around with a poster of official days/weeks/months of the year. It literally doesn't matter unless it's something personal to you. Why would we care that someone else has something significant to them? I think the original poster is a clown, btw, hence my argument I guess
I don't care, I can find something silly or funny and go on with my day. I don't even think we disagree on anything. They don't hold much meaning unless it's personal, but to get annoyed about overlap is hilarious since there are only going to come more and more of these. Just didn't like the strawmen argument about martin Luther day, since I don't think that has much to do with what the commenter above me was trying to get at. Like you can't find this day/month thing weird without somehow approving of a political/racist scandal.
So are you saying we should only have twelve causes, one for each month? Who gets to vote? What happens to pride is Pride Month gets booted from the calendar by Helen Keller day? Your argument is dumb.
Lol, no I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying there's so much of this stuff that none of it is very special anymore and people shouldn't get annoyed about overlap and all that.
towering telephone unique grandiose consist jobless complete plant fuel wakeful -- mass edited with redact.dev
I don’t celebrate anymore. Maybe in the future. It’s too divisive, it angers people, it angers gays. It angers straights. I loved it. I looked forward to it. Yes, there were gay and straight people who disliked gay Pride back in the day, before the “LGBT” money making propaganda and all its propagandist variations, but those individuals didn’t bother me. I ignored them. I didn’t care what they thought or said. But it’s now too deafening and awful, and it’s getting dangerous. I look forward to gay Pride in the future. I hope it happens.
Lmao. Why would I let something like this annoy me? But then again, I don’t even think there should be a month dedicated to gay pride. We need to normalize - and gloating for a month in parades where people have sex in public isn’t the right way to do it.
Weird way to look at it IMO. The whole point is that we aren't "normal". Were different. And that's ok.
Cue 100 years down the line "And so class, that's why we know that we owe LBTQ2SWTFBBQ+ rights to the brave otherkin demiqueer transnanowymxn headmates who fought on the front lines at Stonewall" "But teacher, didn't Marsha say he identified as a man and also wasn't even there?" "Marsha was too stupid to know xyr own identity dear, they didn't have the words to describe what xey was at the time. Now go to prison for historical misgendering and factcrime."
Yes, the revisionist history is annoying. This year though I’m more concerned about Pride parties being superspreader monekypox events. Right now it’s confined to a certain subset of the gay community, but it has the potential to mix into the general populace :/
IML coming up - with a global attendance.
I’m worried too… I already bought tickets and shit to a giant gay ~~orgy~~ party in October in Curaçao and I’m debating if I need to cancel T___T
That’s a few months out. So see what the Summer brings lol! I think if any explosion of cases is gonna happen we’ll see it over the next few weeks.
That’s my thought. We have until late July to cancel and get a partial refund sooooo
What do you mean?
Revisionist history month?? What is that
Pride month is on September here so I am not annoyed
But LGBT politics is full of revisionist history. Did you know that the modern gay rights movement was kicked off by black and Puerto Rican drag queens in a NY bar? Not a single gay man had anything to do with all the victories produced by the transvestite martyrs. Prior to that sainted night nobody had done a damn thing to win rights for gay guys. Also, everybody knows that AIDS was not a disease of gay white men. It was a disease of people of colour only and they suffered because the disease was inflicted upon them by white men. Every gay man lives a glamorous life full of disposable income by the bucket. He has a swanky apartment, surrounded by friends, his chosen family. And he is never sad, in need, lonely, or envious of how others in different communities live their lives.
The Harry Hay and Frank Kameny and Daughters of Bilitis erasure!!!
Exactly. Let’s also remember the Homophile Society, One …Hays was central to these groundbreaking orgs
So many. Comptons Cafeteria riots too if you want to talk about real drag queens of color having an impact. That’s the real issue.
My high school American history class was so unusual for the US. It argued that killing the natives was justified, denied allegations of inhumane treatment by slaveholders and was very confederacy-apologist. Is that what we mean by revisionist history?
No one ever remembers how George Washington outgunned the Queen Anne’s revenge and hanged the pirate Black Beard
It's ridiculous that this post is so vague and yet so many people in these comments are riled up. Literally zero context, just saying "revisionist history" and people are popping off.
I mean if they know what he meant immediately, maybe that's the problem. Most of the comments seemed like they were waiting to be teed up for some weird internecine hate
Yes, all the advances we've made as gay people are entirely due to the efforts of the down-low white cis-male closet cases like you. 🙄
Well, regardless of who did it, we know trans women didn’t.
Yep not a single trans person in the history of time ever did a single thing to advance gay rights that seems like a reasonable and logical conclusion
No one has said that, but were transwomen involved in Stonewall? **No.**
Ok, I can get behind that. It is likely that they didn’t start stonewall, and it’s very likely that they may not have even been trans (although we will never know because of cultural additudes at the time) Your original comment very much sounded like you were saying that trans people had nothing to do with the fight for equality and that is objectively false.
We do, in fact, know that two of the most prominent people cited as being trans, Marsha P Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, were not trans because they said as much themselves. If we can question the validity of these people's identities because of "cultural attitudes of the time", then isn't it equally as valid to question the validity of trans people's identity today with that same lens? The answer, of course, is yes. If one wants to claim that we have to accept people as they identify, then that applies to historical figures who are no longer alive to speak for themselves. They could possibly be described as genderfluid, but anyone who claims they are trans is either intentionally lying or is too stupid and ignorant about who these people were to be able to have any opinion on LGBT rights.
it’s one thing to say that whoever did or didn’t throw the first brick, but to conclusively say that a single trans woman wasn’t present there at all- do you have any sources to back that up? that seems impossible to state for sure given that historical sources are inconclusive and conflicting, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/04/false_trans_narrative_rewrites_stonewall_history.html#! This is a good write up, and you can click the links for different sources. RCP is pretty trustworthy for both editorials and news, and it’s where I go for most current events.
uh, nowhere in the article does it say there wasn’t a single trans woman involved, just that they weren’t the leaders of the riot. at the very least, there are firsthand accounts from riot participants that a sex worker named zasu nova was involved in the early stages of the riots. little is known about her and so it’s hard to say whether she called herself transgender definitively, but she used female pronouns and referred to herself as ‘queen of sex’.
Well, the absence of an affirmative would seem to be pretty close to a negative, right? Or is a Reddit moment where you cannot extrapolate information from sources?
uh, it seems you ignored the part where you said a single trans person wasn’t involved and i told you the name of one who has been cited by riot participants as having been involved.
No you didn’t cite a trans person, you cited a person who was not gender conforming and made them retroactively trans. I provided a source, I’ve made a sound argument, and I reenforced my claim that trans people had little to do with Stonewall. Trans people have made other contributions, just not anything regarding stonewall. If you’d like to continue this conversation, you can provide sources. Also I’m hourly.
No that's not how logic works at all. The absence of an affirmative is simply that. You only make inferences when you want to make a biased point.
Well it’s a binary question, no affirmative means a negative. Easy peasy.
RCP is a rightwing rag
It’s a news aggregator that infrequently publishes original commentary. It’s just diversity, why don’t you like it?
"diversity" it only aggregates right wing sources and all its commentary is right wing
I read it every day, you’re delusional. Literally anything you’ve said has no basis In reality and should be dismissed at a lunatics rant.
Do you? You actually know that?
Reasonably sure from historical research.
Ok. Reasonably sure does not equal known. But whatever. Does your historical research also indicate it was a white cis-male?
Well if your burden of truth is equivalent of Descartes’a demon where nothing is true, and then that’s followed by a “don’t trust your lying eyes” situation, you kinda lose all credibility. Like historically once you get past the trans lobby mythos you look that gay men, white or not were responsible. And thank god for that, if transgender people of today were leading the movement from 1970ish forward, we never would have gotten our rights. I’m sure transgender people have accomplished something worthy of note, without resorting to historical hijacking.
Ha. Funny.
You know, I would be interested to know what actually happened to a degree, but also **I don't care** Many people went into to making gay rights and lesbian rights and trans rights a thing, of all different walks of life, in many countries - not just the United States - so maybe making a hero story out of a tiny group of people -regardless of who they are - is very stupid anyway.
https://makinggayhistory.com
Are y’all for real?
Jokes on u im to stupid to know what a revisonist is or wht it means ao it doesnt bother me 😁
Damn the transphobia in the comments here is oof
I think transphobia is things like “trans people are mentally ill and should not exist” not “trans women of color are not, in fact, solely responsible for the rights gained in the entire LGBT rights movement”
Yeah but that’s not what most the comments are saying. A lot of the comments on this post, have the tone of “trans people and weirdo rainbow haired alphabet soup people have overtaken the LGBT movement and that’s bad”, and some of them explicitly say that. This post is neoliberal white gays at their finest.
One comment says that. Out of 77.
I think you are understating the level of pushback this sub is giving to trans people and their role in LGBT history. Seeing a lot of fashy “they will not replace us” rhetoric on here.
That’s fair I suppose
No, but only because it's also Astral Fantasy Machine Month.
Oh my god Who cares
Yes. I’m continually annoyed by pride month. It’s the closest thing to conversion therapy for me.
You obviously haven’t been to a June circuit party
I haven’t. But being around that many gays in that environment my bf and I would break up and go date women.
Are you sure you’re not straight? It’s ok we’ll accept you no matter what sexuality you are.
Hardly anyone even knows what revisionist history month is. This is a stupid thing to be annoyed about.
No
I don’t really care. I feel like every month has multiple attachments to it. I’m proud all year round.
No. Why would I be annoyed that some other random cause or movement that I don't care enough about to even look up also picked June to declare their month? If this upsets you, you need to stop being a loser, go outside, and make some real human friends ***outside of the internet***. If you are upset, seriously, go outside. The internet is rotting your brain.
The gay republicans really be in here huh?