
A split-scene illustration contrasts an early LGBTQ+ protest march filled with activists carrying liberation signs and demanding equal rights against a modern Pride parade featuring rainbow flags, corporate sponsorships, and celebratory crowds, highlighting the movement’s evolution from political resistance to mainstream cultural celebration while emphasizing the continuing struggle for transgender equality. (Image generated by ChatGPT using DALL·E, 2026.)
Every June, millions of people gather for Pride celebrations across the United States. Streets are filled with rainbow flags, corporate logos, political candidates, and festival-like atmospheres. For many participants, Pride is a joyful affirmation of LGBTQ+ identity and a celebration of the progress that has been achieved over the past half century.
Yet Pride was not created as a celebration.
Pride was born from protest.
The first Pride marches emerged in the aftermath of the Stonewall uprising of 1969, when LGBTQ+ people fought back against routine police harassment and discrimination. Early Pride events were acts of political resistance. Participants marched because they faced criminalization, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, family rejection, and social exclusion. Pride was a demand for change, not a celebration of acceptance (TIME, 2020).
Over time, however, Pride changed.
By the late 1990s and early 2000s, LGBTQ+ organizations were increasingly integrated into mainstream political and corporate institutions. Large corporations began sponsoring Pride events. Politicians who once avoided association with LGBTQ+ causes now sought visibility in Pride parades. Pride organizations became larger, more professionalized, and increasingly dependent upon corporate sponsorship and institutional partnerships.
This transformation brought benefits. Greater visibility helped normalize LGBTQ+ identities, and corporate sponsorships provided resources that allowed Pride events to grow dramatically. Yet there was also a cost.
As Pride became more institutionalized, its activist character began to fade. Events that once centered political demands increasingly emphasized entertainment, marketing, and celebration. What had begun as a protest movement gradually evolved into a cultural festival. Many activists have argued that the commercialization of Pride diluted its political message and encouraged the public to believe that the struggle for LGBTQ+ equality had largely been won (Cornell University, 2022).
That perception grew even stronger after marriage equality became law nationwide. For many Americans, the legalization of same-sex marriage represented the culmination of the modern LGBTQ+ civil rights movement. The dominant narrative became one of victory rather than continued struggle.
But for many transgender people, the struggle was far from over.
The tensions between mainstream LGBTQ+ organizations and transgender activists became particularly visible during the debate surrounding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, transgender activists fought for legislation that would prohibit workplace discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. However, many political leaders and advocacy organizations believed that including gender identity protections would make the legislation more difficult to pass.
In 2007, a version of ENDA was advanced that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation but excluded gender identity protections. Supporters of the strategy argued that political realities required compromise. They believed Congress was not prepared to pass a fully inclusive bill and that securing protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers was better than securing no protections at all (Washington Blade, 2017; HRC, 2007).
For many transgender activists, however, this was not a strategic compromise. It was a betrayal.
The message they received was that transgender equality could be postponed because it was politically inconvenient. As a result, transgender activists increasingly relied upon their own organizations and advocacy networks rather than established LGBTQ+ institutions. These groups spent years educating the public, documenting discrimination, challenging exclusionary policies, and building a movement focused specifically on transgender rights.
Over the following decade, public awareness of transgender people increased dramatically. Media coverage expanded. Public opinion shifted. Gender identity became a more visible topic in American political discourse. As transgender rights gained national attention, major LGBTQ+ organizations—including the Human Rights Campaign—became increasingly active advocates for transgender equality.
Many welcomed this support. Additional resources and national visibility strengthened the fight against discrimination. Yet for some transgender activists, the shift was difficult to forget.
From their perspective, transgender organizations had spent years fighting battles that larger LGBTQ+ organizations had either ignored or treated as secondary concerns. Only after transgender rights became more politically visible and socially recognized did many of those larger organizations fully embrace transgender advocacy. The criticism was not that these organizations eventually supported transgender rights. The criticism was that they had not shown the same commitment when doing so carried greater political risk.
This history reflects a broader problem within modern Pride and LGBTQ+ politics. As movements become institutionalized, they often shift from challenging power to managing relationships with power. Organizations become concerned with political access, public relations, donor relationships, and legislative strategy. The result can be a form of respectability politics that prioritizes achievable victories while leaving more controversial or vulnerable communities behind.
Today, transgender people remain the primary targets of legislative attacks on LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Hundreds of bills have been introduced in recent years targeting transgender healthcare, participation in public life, and legal recognition (Human Rights Campaign, 2026). Yet many Pride events continue to project an image of completed victory rather than ongoing struggle.
Celebration has an important place. LGBTQ+ people deserve joy. They deserve visibility. They deserve to recognize how far the movement has come.
But Pride should never forget why it exists.
Pride was created because LGBTQ+ people were denied equal rights. It was created because marginalized communities demanded justice from institutions that refused to recognize their humanity. If Pride becomes only a celebration, it risks forgetting the very activism that made those celebrations possible.
The history of transgender activism during the ENDA era serves as a reminder that progress is rarely as complete as it appears. Rights can be delayed. Communities can be sidelined. Movements can become comfortable.
The challenge for Pride today is not whether it should celebrate victories.
The challenge is whether it still remembers how to fight.
References
Cornell University. (2022, June 15). Is Pride too commercialized? https://lgbt.cornell.edu/news/pride-too-commercialized-0
Human Rights Campaign. (2007, November 7). U.S. House takes historic step by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/u-s-house-takes-historic-step-by-passing-the-employment-non-discrimination
Human Rights Campaign. (2026). Fighting anti-trans politics. https://www.hrc.org/our-work/stories/fighting-anti-trans-politics
TIME. (2020, June 18). What’s changed—and what hasn’t—in 50 years of Pride parades. https://time.com/5858086/pride-parades-history/
Washington Blade. (2017, November 6). 10 years later, firestorm over gay-only ENDA vote still remembered. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/11/06/10-years-later-firestorm-over-gay-only-enda-vote-still-remembered/

The National Park Service’s Erasure of Transgender History at Stonewall
By Katherine Walter
On February 18, 2025
In LGBTQ+ rights
The Stonewall National Monument sign is seen as people protest outside the Stonewall Inn in New York, the scene of riots against police raids on the gay bar in 1969, on February 14, 2025, after the word transgender was erased from the National Park Service’s webpage about the riots. (Photo by Kena betancur / AFP) (Photo by KENA BETANCUR/AFP via Getty Images)
In a move that has sparked widespread controversy, the National Park Service (NPS) has removed references to “transgender” individuals and the “T” from the LGBTQ+ acronym on its Stonewall National Monument webpage. This action is widely viewed as an attempt to erase the significant contributions of transgender individuals to LGBTQ+ history, particularly their pivotal role in the 1969 Stonewall Riots.
Established in 2016 by President Barack Obama, the Stonewall National Monument commemorates the 1969 uprising at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, a key event that catalyzed the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. The monument serves as a historical reminder of the struggle for equality and the continued fight against discrimination (National Park Service, n.d.).
On February 13, 2025, the NPS updated the Stonewall National Monument webpage, removing the term “transgender” and altering the acronym from “LGBTQ+” to “LGB.” This change is aligned with previous federal policies that have sought to define gender strictly as male or female, excluding recognition of transgender identities (The Guardian, 2025). Critics argue that such historical revisionism distorts the reality of past events and undermines the contributions of transgender activists who played a crucial role in the Stonewall Riots (Reuters, 2025).
The decision has been met with widespread backlash from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, historians, and public officials. Stacy Lentz, co-owner of the Stonewall Inn and an outspoken LGBTQ+ rights advocate, condemned the move, stating that it dishonors the trans community’s role in the struggle for equality (Reuters, 2025). New York Governor Kathy Hochul also criticized the change, calling it “cruel and petty” and emphasizing that New York would not allow transgender individuals’ contributions to be erased (The Guardian, 2025).
Protests have erupted at the Stonewall National Monument, with activists demanding the restoration of the original language that included transgender individuals (CBS News, 2025). Advocates argue that the removal of transgender references is part of a broader effort to marginalize the trans community and erase its historical presence in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights (NBC News, 2025).
Transgender individuals played a significant role in the Stonewall Riots. Marsha P. Johnson, a Black transgender woman, and Sylvia Rivera, a Latina transgender woman, were among the most prominent figures in the uprising. Both later co-founded the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR), an organization dedicated to providing shelter and resources for homeless transgender youth (Asbury Park Press, 2025).
Eyewitness accounts and historical records confirm that transgender individuals were at the forefront of the resistance against police oppression during the raid on the Stonewall Inn in June 1969. Their defiance and activism ignited a movement that has since fought for LGBTQ+ rights across the nation (The New York Times, 2025).
The erasure of transgender history from the Stonewall National Monument is not just a symbolic act—it has real consequences. Historical revisionism that excludes transgender individuals contributes to their continued marginalization and reinforces narratives that deny their existence and struggles. Recognizing the full scope of LGBTQ+ history, including the vital role of transgender people, is essential in ensuring a future where all identities are acknowledged and respected.
LGBTQ+ advocates and historians have called for the National Park Service to restore the original language that included transgender individuals. Preserving the integrity of history is not just about honoring those who fought in the past; it is about ensuring that future generations understand the full truth of the LGBTQ+ rights movement.
References
ABC News. (2025, February 13). Transgender references removed from Stonewall National Monument website. https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-references-removed-stonewall-national-monument-website/story?id=118804553
Asbury Park Press. (2025, February 18). Black transgender NJ woman led the Stonewall Uprising. Now her family fights for her. https://www.app.com/story/news/2025/02/18/black-trans-nj-woman-marsha-p-johnson-led-stonewall-uprising/78964198007
CBS News. (2025, February 14). Protests at Stonewall National Monument after “LGBTQ” changed to “LGB” on website. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stonewall-national-monument-protest-trans-queer-references-removed
NBC News. (2025, February 14). References to transgender and queer removed from Stonewall National Monument’s web page. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/references-transgender-queer-removed-stonewall-national-monuments-web-page-n1234567
National Park Service. (n.d.). Stonewall National Monument. https://www.nps.gov/ston/index.htm
The Guardian. (2025, February 13). US park service erases references to trans people from Stonewall monument website. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/13/stonewall-website-transgender
The New York Times. (2025, February 13). U.S. Park Service strikes transgender references from Stonewall website. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/us/stonewall-national-monument-transgender.html
The Washington Post. (2025, February 14). National Park Service removes transgender references from Stonewall monument website. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stonewall-monument-transgender-references-removed/2025/02/14/abc123def456
Reuters. (2025, February 14). Trump erasure of transgender references extends to Stonewall monument website. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-erasure-transgender-references-extends-stonewall-monument-website-2025-02-14/