Gender and Sexuality Diversity History in the 20Th Century

Gender and Sexuality Diversity History in

the 20th Century

Stonewall Editorial Excerpts

Garrett Weinstock

“...The first major issue that people have with this movie is its protagonist, a white, cisgendered, middle-class young man named Danny. He was kicked out of his house and shamed for being gay, so he moved to New York City where he met a group from the queer community and eventually partook in the Stonewall riot. People have a problem with the identity of this protagonist. They believe that telling the story through Danny’s lense does not portray the gay community to its fullest extent. I, however, believe that using Danny as a protagonist was a smart way of introducing the outside, heterosexual world into the world of Stonewall, 1969 without being overwhelmed. Danny serves as a sort of halfway point between the heterosexual community the movie aims to educate and the wild, partying, dancing, fluid gay community in “Stonewall”. With Danny, we can see the world he left and the world he was thrust into and we can feel the same discomfort and confusion as he when he meets Ray and his friends. The best protagonist is one who is relatable and making the protagonist someone who feels rejected and thrown into an unknown world is the best possible connection to be found to the common movie watcher in my opinion. As for the validity of someone like this even being part of the riots, there was a group formed after the events called the Gay Liberation Front: ‘The GLF spread quickly through activist networks in the student and antiwar movements, primarily among white young people of middle-class origin…’ This shows that white, middle-class young people were indeed a part of the gay rights movement at this time and shows that Danny is a valid protagonist despite not coming from the inner circles of the Stonewall community…”

Karis Treadwell

“...When studying Stonewall, we must also pay special attention to the underlying causes that explain why Stonewall happened at the time that it did. Thinking about this aspect of history is important because it allows us to see patterns emerge, to better understand the experiences and feelings of those involved at the time, and to prevent repetition of behavior that causes conflict. There were several circumstances that created the perfect storm for Stonewall to happen. Martin Duberman describes that Craig Rodwell, an activist in the Mattachine Society, was ‘fed up with the gay bar scene,’ due to ‘mafia control over the only public space most gays could claim, with the contempt shown the gay clientele, with the speakeasy, clandestine atmosphere, the watered, overpriced drinks, the police payoffs and raids,’ The LGBT community was, understandably, sick of the constant discrimination they faced, which made it impossible for them to be treated like normal members of society. The police controlled every aspect of LGBT life that they could, and when people gained enough motivation to challenge the police, everything exploded. I agree with you that a probable explanation behind the exact timing of the riots is Rodwell’s idea that, ‘just everything came together at that one moment.’ When discrimination had been keeping people confined for so many years, it makes sense that people’s rage eventually reached a boiling point at which they struck back.

Selina Zhou

“...The bravery of individuals who defended themselves definitely could be considered as another trigger. ‘The next person to come out was a dyke, and she put up a struggle — from car to door to car again. It was at that moment that the scene became explosive. Beer cans and bottles were heaved at the windows, and a rain of coins descended on the cops.’ Though some people argue that it is this resistant individual who started the whole Stonewall event, she is still a lesbian, a part of the minority group who had been oppressed for so long, instead of Danny, the protagonist that was portrayed in your film. Allyship is definitely important and should be considered in our discussion of discrimination, however, it is still important to keep in mind that allies themselves are simply not enough to affect the start of the Stonewall riot. Another person who was believed to start the crowd to become inpatient and violent was Sylvia Rivera, who ‘long maintained that she threw the beer bottle that tipped the crowd’s mood from playful mockery to violent resistance, after she was jobbed by a police baton.’ Individuals might be fighting against the police force simultaneously, making it even harder for historians to determine who and what exactly gave rise to the whole event…”

Sierra Smith

“...In the movie, the pivotal moment is shown as the main character Danny throws the bottle into the Stonewall, thus creating chaos in the crowd. Although this moment is highly debated among historians and even people who were present in the Stonewall riots, there is no such place for this fictional, white, male, middle class, cisgendered character to be the cause of everything that happened in Stonewall. I believe that even though historians and even people who were present in the Stonewall riots, there are ways in which you, a director, could get around this issue and not cause such controversy...Although we do get introduced to some not cisgendered individuals such as Queen Congo and Marsha P Johnson, they play no physical role in creating the Stonewall into the riot it was. In Transgender History, it mentions that the book that ‘One particularly memorable sight amid melee was a line of drag queens, arms linked, dancing a can-can and singing campy, improvised songs that mocked the police and their inability to regain control of the situation.’ In the movie this is portrayed as having presumed cis-men singing and dancing which totally erases the whole trans community. This scene is extremely important when looking at Stonewall because it shows how Queens ( people rejected partly by their own LGBT community and the whole of society) comedically challenge an constant oppressive force. The rejection to show the real scene is a rejection to Trans people. As a Hollywood film, this is being presented to America in which Americans can learn about Stonewall, but this shows the erasure of trans people…”

Thera Han

“...I now feel strongly about advocating my peers to learn about the Stonewall Riots. I found out most of my peers know little about the Stonewall Riots. I think this is because the Stonewall Riots is not represented enough and at the same time often misrepresented in the mainstream American culture, which is why I think it would be particularly exciting and meaningful if our school is willing to devote an ExTerm project to educate students about the Stonewall Riots…The Stonewall Riots should be told through different narratives, because this story doesn’t belong to one person, but Hollywood’s lens failed to capture different narratives of the Stonewall Riots, therefore I think we should provide students a chance to review this event from different narratives. As one of the most famous events in queer history and in U.S. history, there was only one movie ever made about the Stonewall Riot. It is a movie called “Stonewall” directed by Roland Emmerich. The result did not satisfy many people, because it doesn’t represent the various groups of people who participated in the Stonewall Riots. The movie was told from the narrative of a young, cisgender, white, upper-middle class male. He was quite, shy and ashamed of his sexuality for the first half of the movie. Then suddenly one night, he decided that he wanted to throw the first brick and yelled “gay power” at the crowd, which apparently was what started the riot. This is the Hollywood version of how the Stonewall Riots began. Hollywood presented Stonewall Riots as the result of the heroic leadership of a white cisgender boy, which is not historically accurate…”

Chrys Shipley

“...The individuals who led Stonewall who were the ‘front liners’ were subject to the most violence and oppression in their society, so they were not rioting they were defending. One leader articulates how trans and gender variant people, specifically trans womxn of color that time were being treated, ‘I’m not even in the back of the bus. My community is being pulled by a rope around our beck by the bumper of the damn bus that stays in the front.’ This statement is not hyperbole even within their own communities gender variant people were ‘tolerated... because we were the gung-ho, we were frontliners.’ So if this group of people was only tolerated because they were being martyrs in their community outside of their community they must have been rejected and subject to violence and they were, they were not protected by their government and rather considered ‘freaks’ by the police and politicians and should be corrected by criminalizing males wearing feminine clothes and females wearing masculine clothes. The outcome of this is and was that gender variant folks (specifically feminine expressing folks) were and are unable to obtain socially acceptable jobs and turn or turned to sex work because ‘that’s the only alternative that we have to survive because the laws do not give us the right to go and get a job the way we feel comfortable’ So these leaders of Stonewall who created an anthem for the queer community and were deemed mothers of their community were subject to being forced into sex work, bullied by their government, and ‘tolerated’ by the community they were fighting for. These leaders were living in a world of violence and Stonewall was a moment where they allowed themselves to be dominating and militant opposed to their usual passivity. They were not rioting but allowing themselves to fight back…”