The newest installment of “Jurassic Park” is hitting theaters July 4th weekend, and whereas usually I detest foolish summer time sequels, for some motive I do get pleasure from watching dinosaurs eat individuals on the large display screen.
“Your scientists had been so preoccupied with whether or not they may, they didn’t cease to suppose if they need to,” Jeff Goldblum famously stated within the 1993 unique. After his character completely framed the moral query nestled within the coronary heart of the Jurassic Park story, I used to be very happy to see Newman from “Seinfeld” get what he deserved. An excellent line or film monologue — like Goldblum’s gem — cannot solely advance a fictional plot, however additionally foster conversations about actual life. Contemplate how Michael B. Jordan’s character Killmonger challenged the concept of isolationism and Jack Nicholson’s line “You possibly can’t deal with the reality” explored what it takes to defend this nation, morally.
One in every of my all-time favourite film monologues was delivered by the late Philip Seymour Hoffman within the 1999 cult basic “Flawless.” Within the scene, Hoffman — portraying a no-nonsense drag queen — confronts a gaggle of conservative homosexual males who search to mute the extra flamboyant members of the LGBTQ+ throughout a Satisfaction march in an try to achieve broader acceptance.
“You’re ashamed of us, however we’re not ashamed of you,” the speech begins. “So long as you go down in your Banana Republic knees … you’re my sisters and I really like you. I do. And f— off!”
I ponder whether Richard Grenell, the previous ambassador to Germany who at the moment serves as an envoy for particular missions within the Trump administration, has seen it. I ask as a result of Grenell, who throughout President Trump’s first time period grew to become the nation’s first brazenly homosexual Cupboard-level official, spent a part of this Satisfaction month attempting to drive a wedge throughout the neighborhood in a vogue similar to what was portrayed within the 25-year-old movie.
In a Reality Social submit again in December, Trump stated that within the envoy position, Grenell would “work in among the hottest spots across the World, together with Venezuela and North Korea.” It appears considered one of Grenell’s particular missions was to promote America on the concept gender identification and transgender healthcare are exterior the realm of what “regular gays” are involved with.
He additionally instructed the LGBTQ+ neighborhood must police itself, echoes of the identical respectability politics framework that’s typically employed to gaslight those that have been systematically disenfranchised. In fact Grenell just isn’t the primary conservative homosexual man who has used his station in life to counterpoint himself on the expense of the collective.
Not lengthy after Hoffman’s character went off in “Flawless” in 1999, Ken Mehlman was appointed President George W. Bush’s director of political affairs and spent years working in opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage — as we now know, from the closet. In 2010, Mehlman, a former chairman of the Republican Occasion, got here out as homosexual. Biographers have documented J. Edgar Hoover’s relationships with males at the same time as he was driving the Lavender Scare. His confederate, Roy Cohn, has an analogous story.
As the varied letters recommend, the LGBTQ+ neighborhood is much from a monolith. Nonetheless, if there’s one factor most of us have in frequent, it’s our tendency to not vote in opposition to our personal curiosity. In 2020, Trump received 27% of the vote. In 2024, it was all the way down to 12%. In between the 2 elections, we noticed a relentless Republican-led assault on LGBTQ+ rights of which Trump has typically been the instigator.
I don’t know what Grenell considers “regular homosexual” conduct, however he doesn’t signify regular homosexual voting. The concept that he may communicate for the neighborhood’s core values just isn’t solely laughable but in addition woefully disingenuous. It was the drag queens and gender-nonconforming members of the neighborhood who started the Stonewall Riots in 1969. Earlier than Grenell was even born, the primary out homosexual particular person to run for public workplace wasn’t a “regular homosexual” however a rare drag queen by the identify of Jose Sarria in 1961. The teams who received progress for queer individuals have by no means been monolithically made up of white, Anglo, heteronormative males. That’s what makes the homosexual rights motion so stunning, so American, so worthy of pleasure and celebration.
And that’s additionally why it’s so bizarre, given the plain concern rippling via the LGBTQ+ neighborhood due to Trump’s phrases and actions, that Grenell chooses to make use of his station to battle for the members of his neighborhood who want his assist the least, and to take action on the expense of the LGBTQ+ individuals who really want a champion.
Insights
L.A. Occasions Insights delivers AI-generated evaluation on Voices content material to supply all factors of view. Insights doesn’t seem on any information articles.
Viewpoint
Views
The next AI-generated content material is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Occasions editorial workers doesn’t create or edit the content material.
Concepts expressed within the piece
- The creator asserts that Satisfaction’s essence lies in embracing range and progress quite than conforming to respectability politics, criticizing figures like Richard Grenell for making an attempt to marginalize flamboyant or non-conforming LGBTQ+ members to achieve broader acceptance[1][4].
- Granderson emphasizes the historic position of drag queens and gender-nonconforming people in pivotal moments just like the Stonewall Riots, noting that the primary brazenly homosexual political candidate (Jose Sarria) was a drag queen, which challenges trendy efforts to sanitize LGBTQ+ advocacy[1][4].
- He highlights that the LGBTQ+ neighborhood just isn’t a monolith however shares a standard tendency to reject voting in opposition to its pursuits, evidenced by Trump’s declining assist (from 27% in 2020 to 12% in 2024) amid Republican-led assaults on LGBTQ+ rights[1][4].
- The article condemns Grenell for reinforcing respectability politics, arguing that his alignment with insurance policies dangerous to susceptible LGBTQ+ members—notably transgender people—contradicts the neighborhood’s legacy of inclusive activism[1][4].
Completely different views on the subject
- Conservative policymakers advocate for limiting federal Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care, arguing such measures shield taxpayer {dollars} from supporting “experimental” remedies, with the Trump-backed Home invoice framing this as fiscal duty[2].
- Critics of gender-affirming care contend that states ought to independently regulate these companies, suggesting federal funding allows medically pointless procedures, although authorized challenges cite potential violations of anti-discrimination legal guidelines within the Inexpensive Care Act[2][3].
- Republican narratives, as noticed on the 2024 RNC, place LGBTQ+ rights as infringing on parental rights and non secular freedoms, framing gender-affirming care bans as protections for youngsters quite than discrimination[3].
- Some conservative voices throughout the LGBTQ+ neighborhood, like Grenell, argue that prioritizing transgender points distracts from “mainstream” homosexual rights objectives (e.g., marriage equality), selling a heteronormative picture for broader societal acceptance[1][3].
