
US Park Service erases word 'transgender' from website commemorating Stonewall riot
The changes were made in the wake of an executive order President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office calling for the federal government to define sex as only male or female.
'This is just cruel and petty,' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, posted on X. 'Transgender people play a critical role in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights — and New York will never allow their contributions to be erased.'
The monument in Manhattan's Greenwich Village section is based in a tiny park across the street from the Stonewall Inn, a bar that became ground zero for the gay rights movement on June 28, 1969, when gay and transgender patrons and neighborhood residents fought back against a police raid.
The park service website on Friday was still filled with information about the uprising, including photographs of noted transgender activists.
But the words 'transgender' and 'queer' had been deleted from text that had been on the site.
Also, the letters T and Q were cut from various references to the acronym LGBTQ and replaced with phrases like the 'LGB rights movement' or 'LGB civil rights.'
Representatives of the present-day Stonewall Inn, which is part of the national monument, and The Stonewall Inn Gives Back Initiative, a nonprofit organization associated with the historic bar, expressed anger and outrage over the changes.
'This blatant act of erasure not only distorts the truth of our history, but it also dishonors the immense contributions of transgender individuals — especially transgender women of color — who were at the forefront of the Stonewall Riots and the broader fight for LGBTQ+ rights," said organizers of the two entities in a statement.
Earlier this week, the homepage for the national monument said that 'Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) person was illegal."
On Thursday, it said: 'Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) person was illegal.'
The National Park Service didn't respond to a message left Thursday seeking comment on the changes. Previously, the park service hadn't responded to questions about whether Trump's executive order would mean changes for the monument.
Then President Barack Obama designated the Stonewall National Monument in 2016.
Last year, a $3.2 million visitor center run by the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Pride Live opened at the site, in partnership with the park service, to tell the Stonewall story in more depth. The center was financed mostly with private donations, except for $450,000 from the park service's charitable arm.
Trump's order declared the federal government would recognize only two immutable sexes: male and female, based on whether people are born with eggs or sperm, rather than on their chromosomes. The change is being pitched as a way to protect women from 'gender extremism.'
Conservative groups such as the American Family Association have praised the change as one that acknowledges the truth. But experts including the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association hold that gender is a spectrum, not a binary structure consisting only of males and females.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The National
23 minutes ago
- The National
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's sudden enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more difficult for Scotland when, despite voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the widespread enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to annex them. But they managed to maintain their culture and their ambitions and so Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their independence movements was a giant linkage of hands across all three countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their anthem word perfectly despite decades of suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate something similar. According to the current First Minister, his plan is the only one which would confer international legitimacy on declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge 'democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and enthusiastic majority. If we needed further proof that Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers extracting maximum coverage for their much-anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.


Sky News
24 minutes ago
- Sky News
Zelenskyy knows he risks another Oval Office ambush - but has to be a willing participant in peace talks
There will be no red carpet or fly past, no round of applause when Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives in Washington DC on Monday. But the bitter memory of his last visit to the White House will feature prominently in the Ukrainian president's thoughts. In February, he was mocked for not wearing a suit and told he didn't "have the cards" by US President Donald Trump, before being walked off the premises early, like an unruly patron being thrown out of the bar. 3:10 Zelenskyy knows he is risking another ambush in the Oval Office but has to present himself as a willing participant in peace talks, out of fear of being painted as the obstacle to a resolution. There was initially measured optimism in Kyiv after Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, because it appeared that no deal had been cut between Washington and the Kremlin without Ukraine in the room, as had been feared. But that restrained positivity quickly evaporated with the release of a statement by Trump the morning after the night before. In the heady heights of a meeting with strongman Putin, he seemed to have abandoned the one key thing that European leaders had impressed upon him - that there had to be an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine as an absolute starting point to a permanent resolution. Trump had apparently reached the conclusion that no ceasefire was required. "The best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine... is to go directly to a peace agreement," is how he put it on his Truth Social media account. 23:24 That sent shockwaves through Kyiv. Many there and elsewhere believe Russia has no intention of stopping the war yet, and will use its military advantage on the battlefield to pressure Ukraine in drawn-out negotiations to give up more territory. In the meantime, the slaughter of Ukrainians will continue. It is the most dramatic of 180s from Trump, who before the meeting and after lobbying from European leaders had said he would not be happy if Putin failed to agree to a ceasefire, and even promised "severe consequences". Yet now reports suggest Trump is giving credence to the Russian position - in a phone call to Zelenskyy he laid out Putin's proposal that Ukraine relinquishes even more territory, in return for an end to the war. The Ukrainian president will have, no doubt, been distressed to see the pictures of Putin being greeted like a king on an American military base in Alaska. It is in direct contrast to how he was hosted on US soil. In Trump's orbit everything is a personality contest, and where he has very obvious deference to Putin, he has disdain for Zelenskyy. That makes the Ukrainian's position very difficult.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump rows back threat of ‘secondary tariffs' against India and China after Putin summit
US president Donald Trump has played down the prospect of imposing so-called 'secondary tariffs' on buyers of Russian oil after his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Trump had proposed the levies as a new way of pressuring Russia's war-time economy if it failed to stop its invasion of Ukraine, and they were largely due to impact China and India, by far the two biggest buyers of Russian crude. Mr Trump earlier this month doubled duties on Indian products to 50 per cent after imposing an additional 25 per cent tariff for buying Russian oil, kicking off from 27 August. New Delhi was facing the risk of even higher tariffs if Mr Trump's summit in Alaska failed to end Russia's war in Ukraine after the US treasury secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday that 'secondary tariffs could go up' if things don't go well at the meeting. In recent days, Mr Trump has expressed his anger with India for its refusal to stop buying oil from Russia. He has accused India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing discounted crude from Moscow. China remains the largest market for Russian oil exports. However, raising tariffs on Beijing threatens to break a delicate truce deal between China and the US after it was extended for another 90 days. The truce saw both countries lowering tariffs on each other's goods after the trade war between the two biggest economies threatened to upend global markets. On board Air Force One on his way to meet Mr Putin in Alaska, Mr Trump still appeared undecided on whether he would impose secondary tariffs or not, saying they would be 'very devastating' for China in particular and suggesting Russia had already 'lost an oil client' in India. ''If I have to do it, I'll do it. Maybe I won't have to do it,' he said. After the nearly three-hour-long meeting with Mr Putin, Mr Trump hailed the Alaska summit as a 'great and very successful day' although 'we didn't get there' on agreeing an immediate ceasefire. He instead endorsed Russia's longstanding position – that Kyiv and Moscow would need to agree a full peace deal while fighting continued in the background. And in a post-summit interview with Hannity, Mr Trump said he would hold off on imposing secondary tariffs on China for buying Russian oil after making progress with Mr Putin. He did not mention India directly. "Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now," Mr Trump said of the tariffs. "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now." India has previously said that it needs Russian oil to meet the energy needs of its fast-growing economy. The country has been sourcing nearly a third of its oil from Russia since the Ukraine war began in early 2022 and Moscow started offering it at a discounted rate. New Delhi has decried the double standards of the US sanctioning its oil purchases while continuing to buy Russian uranium hexafluoride, palladium and fertiliser. Narendra Modi's government called the US tariffs "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable" and vowed to "take all actions necessary to protect its national interests'.