This week I contributed to a documentary about a gay murder in the early 90s. To prepare, I looked through the Capital Gay archive of 1993. It made grim reading. This thread may be useful next time we're told that using the 'wrong' pronoun is the same as homophobia in the 90s.
JANUARY. Obituaries took up a lot of space in gay newspapers – both in editorial and the small ads. One of these is a world celebrity; everyone else is a gay Londoner. Aside from Nureyev, the ages of the deceased (where provided) are 45, 34 and 33.
FEBRUARY. Police thwart a queer*bashing spree on Hampstead Heath, arresting four men armed with baseball bats, CS gas canisters and snooker cues.
*The violent attackers were looking to attack, maim and even murder gay men, not married heterosexual oppression tourists.
MARCH. Figures reveal that 58 gay men and 46 lesbians were discharged from the armed forces in 1991 for being homosexual*. @anyabike, then of Stonewall, says the official figures are just the tip of the iceberg.
*Not for being LGBT+. Being asexual in the armed forces was fine.
APRIL. Some good news: John Major's government agrees to issue guidelines to prevent local authorities evicting the same-sex partners of recently deceased people from council flats. Just 11 weeks earlier, a Housing Bill committee refused to back this reform.
MAY. Tear gas is sprayed at customers inside a gay pub in Brighton. Police say they're hearing of more and more incidents of this nature.
(The report is written by the late lamented @Fagburn)
JUNE. SERIAL KILLER STALKS LONDON. The police reveal that five men have been killed in their beds in exactly the same way and they believe the same killer is responsible. They know this, we later learn, because the killer called 999 to complain that no one was looking for him.
JULY. More on that murder hunt. We were pretty angry. 'Police believe the same man made six phone calls to various London police stations, but those calls dried up on June 15th, the day the call was made telling police about a fifth victim...'
AUGUST. A debate on lowering the age of consent for gay men (gay sex is currently illegal for under-21s) is banned from Westminster Hall, a stone's thrown from Parliament, because one side of the motion contravenes religious teachings on morality.
SEPTEMBER. A rise in homophobic attacks in South London is linked to the popularity of the Buju Banton song Boom Bye-Bye, whose lyrics incite the murder of gay men.
(The Guardian later publishes an op ed saying the gays complaining about this song are racist.)
OCTOBER. Police pay £10k to a 28-year-old man who was arrested for gross indecency and then beaten up in custody. His real offence was to use a public toilet (for its actual purpose) while gay
NOVEMBER. We ran a short item like this every month. Nearly 21,000 people in the UK had now been diagnosed with HIV, of whom just over 8,000 had progressed to Aids and 5,153 had died. The overwhelming majority were gay men. The majority were probably also our readers.
DECEMBER. In our Xmas issue, we can report the jailing of serial killer Colin Ireland for life, never to be released. My personal view from the Old Bailey is at the bottom of the page. NB also on the same page the creator of The Archers slamming plans to introduce gay characters.
Also DECEMBER. A man who admitted stabbing Duncan Bone five times while he was tied up in his own bed and then setting fire to his body gets 14 years for manslaughter after the jury fails to reach a verdict on the murder charge. By the standards of the day, this was a good result
That last one was the case I was commenting on for the film crew this week. There you have it: 1993, month by month. Of course we also reported good news, because we were a local paper and a notice board for the community. We tried to amplify happiness wherever we found it.
NB there's no mention in this digest of Section 28, a nasty law which was never actually used in a prosecution and was a fairly low-level problem back then, what with everything else we faced. Remember that when people who weren't there talk about 'the era of Section 28'.
And do feel free to quote from this review of gay life in the early 90s next time a self-appointed expert on the history of the period tells you that the present, long-overdue debate on the role of Stonewall in the public realm is 'just like the homophobia of the 80s and 90s'.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was delighted to see @andrewstickland's Mars Alone trilogy praised in the New Statesman. They're superb books that haven't found the audience they deserve. But also, Andrew was the target of attempted sabotage by trans activists. The reason may make you gasp 1/
The trilogy, written for young adult readers, is what's known as 'hard' sci-fi – not because it's difficult to read (quite the contrary) but because it obeys the laws of physics. There's no teleportation, travel beyond the speed of light or encounters with aliens 2/
Instead it's a completely believable adventure yarn which just happens to be set three hundred years in the future, when humans have colonised the Moon and Mars. The kind of future that @elonmusk envisages. It's fascinating 3/
In the 1940s and 50s, Hollywood operated a blacklist, refusing to employ people with 'wrong' political opinions, whether or not those opinions had any impact on their work. Scores of careers were destroyed. The blacklist is now widely acknowledged to have been a bad thing. 1/
In 2024, Scotland's largest literary network launched a blacklist, instructing bookshops not to sell books if they were written by authors with 'wrong' political opinions. Many lives and careers have already been damaged by this persecution. 2/ archive.ph/xe8Pw
An interesting difference: the Hollywood blacklist may have been inspired by the US government's House Un-American Activities Committee, but the blacklist itself was the initiative of Hollywood's studio bosses. The private sector, in other words, not the state. 3/
🧵Thank you to Andrew Anthony of the Observer for holding @jonronson to account over his disgracefully partial documentary about Camp Trans. Ronson refuses to update the programme (which would be easy to do), nor has he replied to any of the criticism, until now.
Ronson's justification for not mentioning the murder of two lesbian Michfest participants and their son by a Camp Trans protestor is twofold: that Dana Rivers hadn't gone to trial by the time the programme went out, and that Michfest and Camp Trans weren't mentioned in court
This really won't do. On the first point, Ronson could have mentioned that Rivers was facing charges, because he was sat in jail awaiting trial when the programme went out. There are no legal rules saying you can't mention forthcoming trials in foreign jurisdictions
🤏🧵After lesbian Brenda Rees took hormones and had surgery so she could present herself to the world as a man called Mark, she was distressed to find she couldn't marry a woman or train for the priesthood, because the law still considered her female
She resolved to challenge this law and in the 1980s took the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights for failing to recognise her male status. Her action was unsuccessful but it paved the way for the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
This allowed trans people to be legally recognised as their chosen sex, not their actual one. A woman like Brenda could marry another woman provided she 'transitioned' to live as a man. Other lesbians had to wait another ten years before they were given the same right to marry
🧵 The Cass Review is 388 pages long. Deciding it's TL;DR is not unreasonable. We all rely on trusted people to read long documents for us and then summarise the key conclusions.
This particularly applies to people in public life, and especially politicians. There are 650 MPs. Expecting them all to read a 388-page report, on just one of the very many subjects they're meant to know about, isn't realistic. It wouldn't be a sensible use of resources.
And for government and opposition parties creating policy on the basis of the Review, it stands to reason that you put your best people on it – grown-ups familiar with the background who will understand all the detail – to formulate a response for your party
In May 2019 Ruth Hunt, who had just resigned as CEO of Stonewall, did a Q&A at the Oxford Union. Asked for tips on how to argue with people who didn't agree with Stonewall on trans issues, she said: 'Those who think transwomen are men? I wouldn't even bother. Leave them to us.'
If that sounds faintly menacing, consider this: a few months later, the @AllianceLGB held its inaugural meeting, at a secret location. None of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people attending believed Hunt's mantra that transwomen were women.
One of those present, the black lesbian barrister Allison Kelly, afterwards tweeted enthusiastically about the meeting. Stonewall then wrote to her chambers demanding that she be sacked. It wrecked Allison's career.