The most recent installment of “Jurassic Park” is hitting theaters July 4th weekend, and whereas usually I detest foolish summer time sequels, for some motive I do take pleasure in watching dinosaurs eat individuals on the large display.
“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 authentic. 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. A superb line or film monologue — like Goldblum’s gem — cannot solely advance a fictional plot, however additionally foster conversations about actual life. Think about how Michael B. Jordan’s character Killmonger challenged the concept of isolationism and Jack Nicholson’s line “You may’t deal with the reality” explored what it takes to defend this nation, morally.
One among my all-time favourite film monologues was delivered by the late Philip Seymour Hoffman within the 1999 cult traditional “Flawless.” Within the scene, Hoffman — portraying a no-nonsense drag queen — confronts a bunch of conservative homosexual males who search to mute the extra flamboyant members of the LGBTQ+ throughout a Delight march in an try to realize 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 like you. I do. And f— off!”
I ponder whether Richard Grenell, the previous ambassador to Germany who presently 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 turned the nation’s first brazenly homosexual Cupboard-level official, spent a part of this Delight month making an attempt to drive a wedge inside the group 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 a number of the hottest spots across the World, together with Venezuela and North Korea.” It appears one in all Grenell’s particular missions was to promote America on the concept that gender id and transgender healthcare are outdoors the realm of what “regular gays” are involved with.
He additionally urged the LGBTQ+ group must police itself, echoes of the identical respectability politics framework that’s typically employed to gaslight those that have been systematically disenfranchised. After all Grenell 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, came out as gay. 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 the same story.
As the assorted letters counsel, the LGBTQ+ group is way from a monolith. Nevertheless, if there may be 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 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” habits, however he doesn’t symbolize regular homosexual voting. The concept that he may converse for the group’s core values isn’t solely laughable but in addition woefully disingenuous. It was the drag queens and gender-nonconforming members of the group who started the Stonewall Riots in 1969. Earlier than Grenell was even born, the first out gay person to run for public office wasn’t a “regular homosexual” however a rare drag queen by the title 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 apparent concern rippling by way of the LGBTQ+ group due to Trump’s phrases and actions, that Grenell chooses to make use of his station to combat for the members of his group 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. Times 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 Instances editorial employees doesn’t create or edit the content material.
Concepts expressed within the piece
- The creator asserts that Delight’s essence lies in embracing range and progress moderately than conforming to respectability politics, criticizing figures like Richard Grenell for trying to marginalize flamboyant or non-conforming LGBTQ+ members to realize 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 fashionable efforts to sanitize LGBTQ+ advocacy[1][4].
- He highlights that the LGBTQ+ group 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 weak LGBTQ+ members—notably transgender people—contradicts the group’s legacy of inclusive activism[1][4].
Completely different views on the subject
- Conservative policymakers advocate for proscribing federal Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care, arguing such measures defend taxpayer {dollars} from supporting “experimental” remedies, with the Trump-backed Home invoice framing this as fiscal accountability[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 Reasonably priced 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 kids moderately than discrimination[3].
- Some conservative voices inside the LGBTQ+ group, 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].
