Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Transgender references removed from Stonewall Bar NYC website

16 replies

MarieDeGournay · 15/02/2025 10:49

Transgender references removed from Stonewall monument website
The Stonewall website now says:

“Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) person was illegal. The Stonewall Uprising on June 28, 1969 is a milestone in the quest for LGB civil rights and provided momentum for a movement.”

The relatively recent addition of TQ++ is gone, which makes it more accurate. Whatever the impetus for removing it, the result is the restoration of historical fact - there was nothing 'transgender' about the Stonewall riots, as the concept hadn't been invented in 1969. The gender-nonconforming men - transvestites, drag queens - who were there were there because they were gay men at a gay bar.

It's worth noting that the website is still all about LGB history and rights, so removing the TQ++ does not mean automatic homophobia.

Rewriting it as a trans uprising also wrote Stomé DeLarverie out of history. She was the Black lesbian who - allegedly - was the first to throw a punch to resist the police raid on the Stonewall bar, hence 'Stormé Started It'.

But even a Black lesbian drag king was too female for the trans version, so the instigators had to be two men who are retrospectively identified as transgender - obviously they couldn't have been transgender in 1969.

This has caused uproar from the trans community: 'you can't spell history without the T' , accusations of censorship, re-writing of history, erasure, distortion of the truth, etc etc.
Oh the irony!

This is 'LGB✂T' in action.

OP posts:
myplace · 15/02/2025 10:50

Good grief. That’s a startling revision.

JadedCat · 15/02/2025 11:00

Whilst the removal of the TQ++ appears on the face of it to be a positive move, Stonewall has a history of, how can I put it politely, removing things that it considers may make it less acceptable for people/organisations to support it.

Stonewall showed everyone what kind of organisation it is and I have no doubt that it will still be promoting the same ideologies as before, but now it be will doing so on the down-low.

Chersfrozenface · 15/02/2025 11:01

That loud, repetitive beeping sound - is it a reversing ferret or just my tinnitus playing up?

ErrolTheDragon · 15/02/2025 11:05

JadedCat · 15/02/2025 11:00

Whilst the removal of the TQ++ appears on the face of it to be a positive move, Stonewall has a history of, how can I put it politely, removing things that it considers may make it less acceptable for people/organisations to support it.

Stonewall showed everyone what kind of organisation it is and I have no doubt that it will still be promoting the same ideologies as before, but now it be will doing so on the down-low.

It says the trump administration removed the references from the National Parks website, not that stonewall has corrected anything.

ErrolTheDragon · 15/02/2025 11:06

@MarieDeGournay - is the quote in your op from the stonewall website or for the stonewall page of NPS?

JadedCat · 15/02/2025 11:07

JadedCat · 15/02/2025 11:00

Whilst the removal of the TQ++ appears on the face of it to be a positive move, Stonewall has a history of, how can I put it politely, removing things that it considers may make it less acceptable for people/organisations to support it.

Stonewall showed everyone what kind of organisation it is and I have no doubt that it will still be promoting the same ideologies as before, but now it be will doing so on the down-low.

Apologies - should have read the post more clearly.
The OP is not referring to the organisation “Stonewall” but the website for the Stonewall Monument.
Articles on the internet state that the references have been removed as part of Trump's policy re there being only 2 biological sexes etc.

So no reversal unfortunately, just a correct adjustment on a National Monument website for a US historical site which now includes factual information.

worrisomeasset · 15/02/2025 11:07

Just to be clear, if you follow OP’s link it shows that story is about the website of the Stonewall Monument in New York and has nothing to do with the UK organisation called Stonewall.

Edit: and of course, a correction appears as I was writing this!

JeremiahBullfrog · 15/02/2025 11:16

"Almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) person was illegal". It wasn't though, was it? The law covered sex acts between men. Being openly LGB was certainly not easy, there was certainly widespread social condemnation of homosexual behaviours, but most aspects of LGB life were not in fact outlawed.

ErrolTheDragon · 15/02/2025 11:20

This has caused uproar from the trans community: 'you can't spell history without the T' , accusations of censorship, re-writing of history, erasure, distortion of the truth, etc etc.
Oh the irony!

Irony indeed. Afaik being trans, unlike being openly gay wasn't illegal in the US before the 60s - Christine Jorgensen returned to the US in the early 50s after his 'sex change' and was feted as a celebrity.

MarieDeGournay · 15/02/2025 11:33

Sorry, maybe I should have been clearer that this is about the Stonewall Bar in NYC, the scene of the riots in 1969, not Stonewall UK.
It was obvious to me, but I should have thought about it better before posting it.

I can see the irony of it today, but yesterday I was just gobsmacked and angry at the lack of self awareness from trans activists objecting to the removal of their highly contested rewriting of L&G history.

Whether Stormé really started it or not, she was written out of the 'mythology' of Stonewall NYC. It took some digging to find this old poster online.
Too female😠

I response to later posters - if being 'openly gay' wasn't actually illegal, the police found many ways of harassing gay people if they dared to socialise together, e.g. 'criminal mischief', 'illegal sale of alcohol' 'disorderly behaviour' etc.. It was this constant harassment that sparked the Stonewall 'we're not taking this any more' reaction in 1969.

Being 'openly gay' in the USA in the 60s would have been subject to 'extrajudicial' punishments ranging from losing your job to losing your life.

It's difficult to imagine now how dangerous it was to be gay in the past, and how life-threatening being openly gay could be.

Transgender references removed from Stonewall Bar NYC website
OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 15/02/2025 11:42

Being 'openly gay' in the USA in the 60s would have been subject to 'extrajudicial' punishments ranging from losing your job to losing your life.

Yes... I'm watching For All Mankind at the moment, one of the strands of the story is about the impossibility of being openly gay in NASA because of potential blackmail - being grilled by the fbi etc. (I'm on S2, vg series for strong female characters BTW)

MarieDeGournay · 15/02/2025 12:16

Should I get the thread title changed to show that it's Stonewall NYC not your own, your very own....🙄? Sorry it wasn't clear.
I've had a rummage around but can't find how you get MN to change a thread title, it's not edit-able by me.

OP posts:
StripyRedSocks · 15/02/2025 12:21

@MarieDeGournay if you report your own post and ask for thread title to be changed that might work

BonfireLady · 15/02/2025 12:52

MarieDeGournay · 15/02/2025 12:16

Should I get the thread title changed to show that it's Stonewall NYC not your own, your very own....🙄? Sorry it wasn't clear.
I've had a rummage around but can't find how you get MN to change a thread title, it's not edit-able by me.

Yes, it would be good to change it as it's unfortunately a bit misleading. I got rather overexcited and thought it was UK Stonewall!

However, it's still a positive step in the right direction. And dare I say it, the accidental muddle helps draw attention to how out of step with its namesake Stonewall (UK) now is. The muddle could easily happen again and could become a Streisand Effect when it comes to putting UK Stonewall in the sunlight on this issue.

NotTerfNorCis · 15/02/2025 13:08

I also read this as the Stonewall organisation and website!

To see it's a Trump edict is disappointing. Creates mixed feelings for me. Yes, it's good genderism is being challenged and truth is reasserting itself. But Trump and his gang are a malignant force. It's like having Putin on your side.

MarieDeGournay · 15/02/2025 16:52

NotTerfNorCis · 15/02/2025 13:08

I also read this as the Stonewall organisation and website!

To see it's a Trump edict is disappointing. Creates mixed feelings for me. Yes, it's good genderism is being challenged and truth is reasserting itself. But Trump and his gang are a malignant force. It's like having Putin on your side.

Sorry for getting all your hopes up about Stonewall UK! I got HQ to change the thread title. Thanks StripyRedSocks for telling me how to do that.

I agree completely that it's a shame that only a Trump 'edict' could restore the historical facts, after such egregious retrospective transing.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread