The question is what is Pride (the organization and the march, not the broad concept) for? I think it's possible Pride has served all its integrationist and acceptance functions and doesn't need to try to speak for all LGBT people anymore. nytimes.com/2021/05/18/opi…
Like, "we are everywhere, we're in your organizations, we're part of every part of the community" was a very important message for the parade to send 20 years ago. But we've won that fight.
Which is to say, that if Pride organizationally adopts an agenda that speaks for only some LGBT people, that excludes in certain ways -- maybe that's fine? Not everything has to be an umbrella, and certainly not everything has to speak for me.
Part of "making it" as a community is not having to present a front of agreeing on everything.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
