Connect with us

National

Melissa Harris-Perry discusses voter suppression, marriage

Tulane University professor’s MSNBC show began in February

Published

on

Gay News, Washington Blade, MSNBC, Melissa Harris-Perry

Melissa Harris-Perry (Photo courtesy of MSNBC)

MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry stressed during an interview with the Washington Blade last week that voter suppression efforts continue to impact transgender Americans.

“They don’t look like what their photo IDs are,” she said from New Orleans. “So if they are self-presenting in front of an election official and they have an ID that says male or female and they’re sort of gender self-presenting in a non-conforming way, of course you end up with the possibility of shame or embarrassment or not being believed to be who you are.”

Harris-Perry had been scheduled to moderate a town hall on voter suppression and discrimination during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual Legislative Conference at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in D.C. on Sept. 20, but she remained in New Orleans after Hurricane Isaac destroyed her home late last month. Harris-Perry further stressed that another problem for trans voters who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery face is they don’t have birth certificates with names and gender markers that “are not informative of what their current life is.”

“All of those things impact the ability of people to have the kind of state-issued ID that is allowable in a lot of these states around voting,” she said. “And so the idea that a person would be a perfectly eligible American citizen who has an opinion about voting and is kept out of it because of those sorts of issues — it goes to the heart of helping us understand that these efforts are really voter suppression efforts, not efforts to keep the election process above board.”

Harris-Perry further credited Rev. Al Sharpton with bringing the issue of voter suppression to mainstream cable news. She applauded “The Nation” and other progressive and LGBT media outlets for their coverage of the issue, but Harris-Perry said that the broader conversation around it remains what she described as particularly narrow.

“Part of it is we get stuck in a historical framework around Jim Crow and our memory of Jim Crow or what we think Jim Crow was about was primarily about keeping black folks from the polls. And that’s both true, but also insufficient,” she said. “It also had the effect of keeping old people out, people without education, folks without resources of all kinds. It had a huge impact among poor whites in the U.S. south. I think we haven’t had a clear enough understanding of just how broad suppression is, how many different groups it impacts. And we have talked about it primarily as a race-based issue in order to keep black folks from voting from the black president. That is undoubtedly part of the story, but it’s also only part of the story. And I do worry that we keep ourselves from having a truly broad-based coalition that we could have if we were clearer about the impact that on women who marry and change their names, and the impact that this has on queer voters and the impact that this has on students as well on poor people, people with disabilities, older folks and black and brown people. It’s actually massive what these efforts to do in terms of limiting our democracy.”

Harris-Perry said she has a better understanding of the issue and its specific impact on trans people because she said her gender non-conforming niece frequently confronts questions when she presents herself as male, but her student ID lists her gender as female.

“Because I am tuned into that, I have a sense of it but I don’t think that it has been part of our civil rights framework to say wait a minute yes, race is important here, but here’s how race is at the intersection of all of these other identities as well,” said Harris-Perry. “We’re only just kind of getting to the back end of the third wave of the feminist struggle. So part of it is ignorance, but that’s only part of it. The other part of it is for many folks they are actively homophobic and disinterested in whether or not these sort of suppression efforts impact LGBT communities and as a matter of political strategy they think talking about it is a bad idea for building the coalitions they hope to build for social action. So the fact is there are four communities and black communities who are certainly happy to take it too far or are maybe insufficiently motivated by knowing that their fellow citizens who are gay and/or queer are also impacted by this. It just doesn’t move them politically.”

 

LGBT issues a frequent topic on Harris-Perry’s show

Harris-Perry has frequently discussed LGBT-specific issues on her eponymous show since it began in February.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, appeared on an hour-long segment called “Being Transgender in America” in April alongside author Kate Bornstein and trans New York City Council candidate Mel Wymore. Harris-Perry also interviewed Dr. Scout of the Fenway Institute’s Network for LGBT Health Equity in Boston who proposed to his girlfriend, Liz Margolies of the National LGBT Cancer Network, during the White House’s LGBT Pride month reception.

Harris-Perry also appeared in a video for the Human Rights Campaign’s Americans for Marriage Equality campaign in June. She said she has been a part of the movement for nuptials for same-sex couples “for a long time,” but she conceded she has what she described as a “deep ambivalence about marriage as the driving policy issue” after the repeal of the ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers.

“My husband is a civil rights advocate in the area of housing and we just see how important the state laws are in housing and education and in employment are and what a deep material impact they have,” said Harris-Perry. “Sometimes marriage feels symbolic comparatively to the impact that those kinds of material policies have on people’s lives. And so in certain ways, even though I’ve always been an advocate of marriage equality because anything else seems patently discriminatory and unfair, it hasn’t been important. And of course I support that, but here are my big issues of these other things.”

She said remarrying changed her perspective.

“I’ve been married and divorced. My joke was that divorce had cured me of marriage and part of why I had a lot of resistance to marriage at the top of the equationI felt like it was sort of pushing that there’s only one kind of family and all of that, but then I made the decision to remarry and the fact is that’s all that i had to do. I just one day I decided I wanted to be married to my life-partner and I did,” said Harris-Perry. “I never had to justify it or explain it. I never had to petition anyone about it and in fact I experienced almost exclusively positive repercussions rather than any negative ones (and by that I mean from other people.) And it was such a reminder of how profound a privilege it is to be able to make decisions that are profoundly personal without the interference of government. We live in Louisiana where people cannot marry, and yet we could. It was such a reminder of how important that is, how important privacy is to our sense of equality and humanity that it became an even more deeply personal issue.”

 

Black voters “not going to be punishing” Obama over marriage

Harris-Perry spoke to the Blade less than two months before the presidential election. Voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota will also consider same-sex marriage ballot measures and a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban nuptials for gays and lesbians on Election Day.

She stressed that she feels that black voters will continue to support President Obama in spite of his support of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

“It is completely clear to me that African American voters are not going to be punishing this president for this position, even if they are not in agreement with him on marriage equality,” said Harris-Perry. “He is not going to lose black voters. There’s been no evidence of the president losing African American support.”

She added she feels Obama’s position has actually caused others within the black community to evolve on the issue — the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Board of Directors passed a resolution in support of marriage rights for same-sex couples less than two weeks after the president publicly backed it during an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts. Hip hop mogul Jay-Z and rapper 50 Cent subsequently backed the issue.

“It’s a signal to queer communities that this president is in a position where in a second term he will back-up this evolution in personal opinion with an additional evolution on policy,” said Harris-Perry. “Certainly with compared to his opponent, the choice is exceedingly clear now and there’s no doubt from that my perspective that’s helpful. This is a president who’s going to go down in history no matter what. From the moment he’s elected he was going to be in the history books, so let’s be in the history not on the side of the restriction of civil rights. It doesn’t really go that well for anybody, ever.”

Harris-Perry, who commutes to New York from New Orleans on the weekends for her show, remains a political science professor at Tulane University. “The Root” last week named her it’s most influential black person between 25-45, but she stressed living in the Big Easy and particularly in the city’s poor and predominantly African American 7th Ward helps her keep things in perspective.

“I said, ‘oh man that’s so great,’” said Harris-Perry, referring to “The Root” designation. “And I have been all over this city today and talked to a dozen people — everybody from the insurance adjusters to the woman I bought my pants over at the White House Black Market, and none of those people have any idea that I have a TV show. They do not care. And it is really lovely and humbling and extremely important to continue to live in a world where the things that matter to people are real-life issues rather than fame or status.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court upholds ban on transgender care for minors 

Skrmetti decision among this term’s most highly anticipated rulings

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a ban on medical interventions for transgender minors in Tennessee, with the three liberal justices dissenting in a ruling that will shield similar laws that block or restrict access to care in more than 20 other states.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said questions about the “safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments” should be resolved democratically. 

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued, in her opinion, that the decision “authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them,” adding that “Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.”

Plaintiffs who challenged Tennessee’s ban were a doctor and three families argued that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

They also emphasized that the care prohibited for minors in the state — puberty delaying medication, hormone therapy, and surgeries — is made available to patients younger than 18 if they are sought for reasons other than gender transitions.

The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, was among the most anticipated of the court’s June term.

President Donald Trump in February formally reversed course from the Biden-Harris administration’s support for the plaintiffs challenging the Tennessee law, urging the Supreme Court to uphold the ban.

Attorneys, Democratic lawmakers, and medical groups object to the ruling

Representing the plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the ban were the Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, Karen Loewy, director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Sasha Buchert, counsel and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, and attorneys with the firm Akin Gump.

“Today’s ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,” said Strangio, who is the first trans lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court. “Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives.”

“The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,” Strangio said. “We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.”

“This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive,” said Buchert. “But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them. Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often life-saving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting.”

“The Court today failed to do its job,” said Levi. When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution’s backbone. Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”

“The Court’s ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender,” said Minter. “Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians. This decision will cause real harm.”

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said: “Today, hate won. The far-right justices of the Supreme Court endorsed hate and discrimination by delivering a win for Republicans who have relentlessly and cruelly attacked transgender Americans for years. With 25 states already having laws in place that ban gender-affirming care for trans youth, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for families in half of the country to no longer access the medically necessary and life-saving care they need for their children.”

The senator continued, “But here is what no Court nor politician can ever change: trans people will continue to exist. Their health care is lifesaving and essential, and trans rights are human rights. We have a fight ahead of us, but discrimination and hate cannot and must not win.” 

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said: “Access to medically-necessary care for trans youth saves lives, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s callous decision puts trans youth and their families at risk.

“MAGA extremists across the nation will not stop at banning medically-necessary gender-affirming care for trans youth. The Court’s life-altering decision lays out the playbook for extremist politicians to continue their crusade against trans people and further exclude them from daily life. And this is just the beginning—this decision opens the floodgates for MAGA extremists in state legislatures and Congress to ban medically-necessary care, from gender-affirming care to abortion access.

“This is just wrong—everyone should have access to the care they need, when they need it. No exceptions.

“Let’s get politicians out of the exam room. We will continue to fight these divisive policies in communities nationwide to fully realize the vision of America as a land of freedom and equality for all, and I won’t rest until my Equality Act is signed into law to deliver on this fundamental promise.”

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is devastating for young transgender Americans and their families who live in states that decide to put divisive and dehumanizing politics over people,” said U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Wis.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

“The Court’s ruling upholding Tennessee’s cruel and politically-motivated ban on medically-necessary care for young trans people undermines the ability of transgender patients, their families, and doctors to make medical decisions about accessing evidence-based care without politicians’ interference,” he said.

The congressman added, “The law the Court upheld is an attack on some of the most vulnerable in our community—but we still have other tools to challenge anti-trans laws in courts across the country. As Chair of the Equality Caucus, I am committed to continuing to lead elected officials from across the country in the fight for full equality for transgender people under the law here in Congress.”

“Every parent wants to keep their child healthy. Parents and trans young people have the right to make private health care decisions with their doctors. Today’s ruling allowing Tennessee politicians to interfere in private health care decisions is not only draconian, it’s dangerous and hateful,” said U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.). “I want families who are feeling scared today about the consequences of this decision to know that I’m with you. I’m fighting for you in Congress every single day, and I will not back down.” 

Markey, Merkley, Takano, and Balint are among the 164 members of Congress who filed an amicus brief urging the court to preserve access to care. The office of U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) announced that the congresswoman, who also signed the brief, would host a press conference about the decision on Wednesday.

Also issuing a statement was a coalition of six medical associations that had submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs — American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, Endocrine Society, and National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners.

The organizations said:

“As experts dedicated to providing patients with compassionate, evidence-based care every day, we are disappointed in the United States vs. Skrmetti decision, which increases the likelihood that other states will limit or eliminate families’ and patients’ ability to access medical care.

“As doctors, nurse practitioners, and nurses, we believe that every patient is different. Decisions about medical care must be based on individualized assessments by qualified professionals in consultation with the patient and their parents or legal guardians and guided by well-designed medical evidence. This Supreme Court decision strips patients and families of the choice to direct their own health care.

“Every patient should have access to the medical care they need. Health care professionals must be able to rely on their training, education, and expertise to provide appropriate care based on the needs and values of each patient and their family, without bans or interference.”

LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups object to the ruling

Allison Scott, president of the Campaign for Southern Equality, said ““I am heartbroken today. No one should be forced to leave their home state to access healthcare – and it is outrageous to see the U.S. Supreme Court uphold these bans and continue to allow the government to interfere with the personal medical decisions of families.”

“The Court’s ruling can’t change what we know in our bones: our identities, our families, and our lives are strong, worthy, and not up for debate by extremists,” she said. “The Trans Youth Emergency Project will be here to help families navigate this painful time.” 

“Today, the Supreme Court took the place of parents and doctors and stripped away their ability to make private, lifesaving decisions for their children,” said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis. “This ruling is a chilling step toward unchecked government overreach, intruding on the most personal aspects of our private lives.”

She added, “All families are now less safe and left vulnerable to politicians and a Court that has abandoned its duty to protect personal liberties. Every family deserves the freedom to make the medical decisions that help their children live, thrive, and be well.”

“This is a devastating and deeply dangerous decision that carries irreversible harm to transgender youth and their families. The majority’s opinion politicizes decades of medical consensus, ignores the Constitution’s mandate of equal protection, and turns its back on youth and their families,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward.

“Our team at Democracy Forward will continue to work every day to support transgender people, including young people, their families, and communities, and we will never give up making the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law a reality for all people,” she said.

Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, said: Today the Supreme Court used the greatest hits of discredited anti-trans, pseudoscientific ideas in order to rule against the equal access of trans kids to healthcare. This is healthcare that is safe, supported by every mainstream medical association, and which is granted with the consent of youth’s parents.  

“Moreover, the Court could only issue such a ruling by overlooking the obvious: The denial of equal access to healthcare for trans kids is sex discrimination. Gender-affirming treatments are allowed for some children but not others under the Tennessee law SB1, which explicitly states as one of its goals to encourage minors to ‘appreciate their sex.’

“So what they did here is the equivalent of denying a person’s race, in order to declare that racial discrimination laws don’t apply.

“Now, while the Skirmetti ruling is not as sweeping as it could have been, because it leaves the door open to future cases on sports and bathrooms, it will likely turbocharge attempts to exempt trans people from Constitutional protections. What the court has done is give these efforts the sheen of judicial legitimacy, and a road map for how to do so, by directing them to leave out the explicit targeting of trans people. 

“Because as long as the attempts to push trans people outside of the bounds of public life using the law are implicit, then governmental entities have free reign to do so, now.

“The success of manipulating legal, scientific, and media organizations with anti-trans disinformation by Christian Nationalist and authoritarian entities is crystal clear in this decision.”

“LPAC is devastated that the Supreme Court has turned away from experts like the American Academy of Pediatrics and hard data showing that health care for trans youth improves physical and mental health, and instead succumbed to political pressure,” said Janelle Perez, executive director of LPAC. “This cruel decision opens the floodgates for politicians to decide what we and our children need to be healthy. These are decisions that should be made by families and healthcare providers, not politicians.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said: “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a devastating blow to transgender youth and the families who love them, but it will not break our resolve. Families may now have to make the heartbreaking choice to leave their state or split their families, or take on extensive financial burdens, in order to ensure that their kids can access medically necessary care. 

“This Court chose to allow politicians to interfere in medical decisions that should be made by doctors, patients, and families—a cruel betrayal of the children who needed them to stand up for justice when it mattered most.

“As parents, advocates, and community leaders, we know that our fight doesn’t end in courtrooms—it lives in our communities, our hearts, and our unwavering commitment to each other. Still, we will not be deterred. We will support families forced to make impossible choices, fund legal challenges, and build a movement so powerful that no politician can ignore us. Together, we will turn this pain into power and keep fighting until every transgender person in America can live with dignity, safety, and the freedom to be who they are.”

Tennessee AG and Log Cabin Republicans celebrate the ruling

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said, “In today’s historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism. A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee’s elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand.”

The AG continued, “I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood.”

Log Cabin Republicans interim executive director Ed Williams released the following statement: 

“The U.S. Supreme Court just upheld Tennessee’s law prohibiting trans medical surgeries and treatments for minors. This decision is not ‘anti-trans.’ It is a historic and critical win for children and common-sense. The majority of Americans support equal treatment for trans Americans and protections from discrimination. They also back laws like Tennessee’s, which protect children from receiving life-altering and irreversible medical procedures or treatments often pushed on them by a zealous cabal that views children as pawns in their gender ideology crusade.

“LGBT conservatives have long believed there is a middle-road that upholds respect, inclusion, and protection for trans Americans while curbing the excesses of a radical political movement attempting to push its bizarre agenda in sports, schools, governments, and hospitals. Today’s Supreme Court is a step in the right direction.”

The Washington Blade will update this story.

Continue Reading

National

Baldwin, Pocan named on alleged Minn. shooter’s target lists

Gunman killed state lawmaker, husband on Saturday

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin and U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, Democrats of Wisconsin, were named on lists of targets belonging to the man suspected of killing Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband and of injuring Minnesota state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife.

The Hoffmans sustained multiple gunshot wounds and are reportedly in serious but stable condition.

Vance Boelter, the suspect, was apprehended on Sunday in connection with the shootings, which occurred on Saturday. He faces federal murder and stalking charges as well as state-level murder and attempted murder charges.

“Senator Baldwin was informed by law enforcement that she was included on the alleged shooter’s list of names,” Baldwin’s Communications Director Eli Rosen told Channel3000.com. “She is grateful for law enforcement’s swift action to keep the community safe and remains focused on the things that matter most here: honoring the legacy and life of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, praying for the other victims who are fighting for their lives, and condemning this abhorrent, senseless political violence.”

“I recently heard that my name was in one of the Minnesota shooting suspect’s notebooks and I’m appreciative that law enforcement apprehended the suspect,” Pocan said in a statement to Channel3000.com. “I will not back down in the face of terror, however, we as elected officials, must do better to lower the temperature. That said, my schedule remains unchanged.”

The news outlet reported on Monday that Baldwin’s name appeared on a list of 70 targets, while Pocan’s name was found on additional documents. The senator and congressman are both openly LGBTQ.

Democratic U.S. Reps. Greg Landsman (Ohio), Hillary Schotlen (Mich.), Veronica Escobar (Texas), and Joaquin Castro (Texas) also confirmed that their names appeared in notebooks recovered from Boelter’s vehicle.

Other Democrats who were reportedly targeted but whose offices have not yet provided confirmation as of Tuesday afternoon include LGBTQ congresswoman Angie Craig, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, and Attorney General Keith Ellison, all from Minnesota, along with U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, U.S. Rep. Nikki Budzinski of Illinois, and U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri.

Walz called the shootings a “politically motivated assassination.”

Continue Reading

National

New LGBTQ+ Archive to save scrubbed federal resources

Trump’s anti-DEI crusade seeks to erase entire communities

Published

on

President Trump’s attacks on DEI have led government agencies to scrub their sites of LGBTQ content. A new initiative aims to preserve the information. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Generally, when someone says, “The internet is forever,” it is not a positive statement. 

But for Shae Gardner, policy director at LGBT Tech, it has become a lifeline as she and her team have spent the last couple of months tracking down documents removed from government websites.

After a series of anti-DEI and LGBTQ executive orders, thousands of pages across the federal government have been removed or altered—with LGBTQ topics taking a big hit.

The LGBTQ+ Archive, launched by LGBT Tech last month, aims to restore lost resources about the LGBTQ community into a centralized hub. They have tracked down approximately 1,000 documents—all available as downloadable PDFs and sorted by agency—but know that more are missing. Users can submit missing documents or requests for missing documents. 

Archived resources range from the 2023 Equity Action Plans mandated under Biden to HIV resource sheets. 

Sid Gazula, LGBT Tech’s Google Policy Fellow said reviewing the documents scrubbed from the Department of Health and Human Services was striking. “You have these important documents related to people’s health. Health isn’t subjective,” he said, “The fact that an executive order could take away all this information was very eye-opening.”

For Gazula it made an already urgent project more urgent. “We, as a community, need access to these resources,” he said, “The archive presents a mechanism to get that access out there.”

The LGBT community has a long history of engaging in archival work, explained K.J. Rawson, professor at Northeastern University and director of the Digital Transgender Archive, in an email. He described archives as “key avenues for preserving and making accessible queer and trans history.”

Since mainstream archives often erase or misrepresent the LGBTQ community, Rawson pointed out that LGBTQ archives “fight against this trend and wrest control back into LGBTQ+ hands,” citing Cait McKinney’s phrase “information activism.” 

Gardner feels appreciative of the history of LGBTQ preservation, which guided their work: “I want to make it abundantly clear that we are not the first or only organization doing this sort of preservation work.” She also mentions the Internet Archive, a non-profit library of web pages, which was invaluable during their research.

When the Blade asked about the LGBT Archive, Rawson described it as “crucial!” He elaborated that, “the overt erasure of LGBTQ+ people––but especially trans people––from federal websites has been a hostile move that’s one part of larger efforts to strip us of our humanity and our history.”

Beyond creating a record for the future, the archive is also useful in fighting for LGBTQ representation today. Gardner explained that numerous journalists and advocacy groups have already been using it. Gazula, who is a student, shared that some of their professors said it was an important resource for academic work. 

To access it, users have to create an account. Gardner said this is not for marketing. Instead, they want to “put a stop gap between us and malicious actors and attacks on the site” and have a basic understanding of who is using the site. She assures users that the data is backed up on servers globally, but encourages folks to download freely from the archive. 

“We decided that we wanted every document and resource on it to be a PDF that they would be able to save it themselves,” said Gardner, “This is not only meant to be very user-friendly, but is also meant to help with those resources being dispersed and being kept.”

“It is the history of our community,” Gardner continued, “we deserve to have continued access to it.”

Continue Reading

Popular