3 ms·
Apparently this is the background context: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/g-s1-48923/stonewall-monument-transgender-park-service https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/
by jey 2y ago
Apparently this is the background context: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/g-s1-48923/stonewall-monument-transgender-park-service https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/g-s1-48923/stonewall-monument...
- jfengel 2y agoI'm surprised that they bothered to replace the sign at all. I'd expect them to just remove it, the way they've eliminated all mention of homosexuality in other parts of the government. I suspect that the monument itself will be disestablished, as soon as they get around to it.
- novemp 2y ago[flagged]
- sophacles 2y agoThey would never remove a monument right? Or does it have to be a statue to count?
- jfengel 2y agoThis isn't just a "monument" in the sense of a statue. It's a National Monument, like Devils Tower or the Little Bighorn Battlefield. But yes, they absolutely could decide that LGBT history is not worth celebrating in the same way we've decided that treason and slave-owning isn't worth celebrating.
- sophacles 2y agoI thought the argument for statues was "it's history not celebration".
- jfengel 2y agoThat is the argument made for them, yes. 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.
- pessimizer 2y ago> When describing the Stonewall Uprising, the website now reads: "Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) person was illegal, but the events at the Stonewall Inn sparked fresh momentum for the LGB civil rights movement!" 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.
- kevingadd 2y agohttps://jacobin.com/2023/03/cross-dressing-law-united-states-history-drag-bans https://jacobin.com/2023/03/cross-dressing-law-united-states... > 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.
- gumby271 2y agoThe most obvious example is the "Three Article Rule" that enforced that you must wear at least 3 articles of clothing that "match" your assigned sex at birth. These were easy rules for police to use to justify arresting people. I'm sure others more in the know can provide similar laws and ordinances that affected trans and cross dressing people.
- pessimizer 2y agoIf that's the most obvious example: > The problem is, the law technically never existed. Instead, accounts suggest that police generally used old, often unrelated laws to target LGBT people throughout the 1940s, ‘50s and ‘60s. 1st hit: https://www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-lgbtq-drag-three-article-rule https://www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-lgbtq-drag-thre...
- jjk7 2y agoWhy did they put a photo from 2001 in black and white? To make it seem older?
- razille 2y ago[flagged]