Today is my birthday, and I cannot think of a better birthday present than this conversation between my two fave legal mavens. (I am now as old as Jack Benny—for those who may not know the reference, this means I am 39 and have been for 37 years.) I loved, loved, loved, the appreciation of definitions, and wish more folks understood how foundational they are to everything in law. I hope you two might do a sequel or two. I would be fascinated to hear an exploration of radical feminism—and I would also take delight in a convo between Glenna and Julie Bindel, perhaps emceed by Kara. (In the interests of partial disclosure, I am an agnostic lesbian on the issue of the science.) Thank you both so much for all!
Great conversation! I appreciate Glenna’s comments about the science of sexual orientation and the importance of furthering it. I was aware of being a lesbian since the age of 4, which was around the year 1966. My experience might be unusual, and I certainly didn’t have a name for how I felt, but it’s the truth. The idea that sexual orientation is a choice, politically informed or otherwise, has never made a lick of sense to me.
A side note on Judith Butler. I was a PhD student in philosophy from the late 1980s into the 1990s. I was in a groovy department that focused on the sexy Continental, rather than the stodgy Anglo American, tradition, so Butler was revered in my orbit. I was also tuned into feminist philosophy and SWIP (Society of Women Philosophy) where all the feminist philosophers congregated. I went to many, many SWIP conferences and I can’t ever recall seeing Butler at any of them. So, I find it odd that she is viewed today as a feminist. I’m not suggesting her work wasn’t informed to some degree by feminist thought, just that she wasn’t one of the feminist philosophers that everyone recognized as such during that time, like Marilyn Frye, Vicky Spelman, Claudia Card, etc.
I would love to hear an episode where the two of you talk about radical feminism, and what distinguishes it from other types of feminism.
It's only been since the 1990s misogynist capture of the word "feminism" as "3rd-wave" or "liberal feminism" that ordinary feminists have felt pushed into calling ourselves "radical feminists" to distinguish from misogynist women calling themselves "feminists."
Radical feminists have always existed in our lifetime. But most of us calling ourselves radical now are not particularly radical. We're just regular ole bog-standard feminists who are NOT misogynists.
I've gone back to calling myself a women's libber.
“But most of us calling ourselves radical now are not particularly radical. We're just regular ole bog-standard feminists who are NOT misogynists.” This is me, exactly!
One thing that's always bothered me about the nature vs nurture arguments over homosexuality is that I, personally, don't think it matters. So what if someone chooses homosexuality over heterosexuality? Why shouldn't they? Who does it hurt? It's not appropriation. It doesn't violate anyone else's rights, privacy, dignity, or safety.
Is it just the insecurities of certain heterosexuals about their *own* orientation that we're addressing? Do they need to be constantly reassured that heterosexuality is "normal," so they expect the rest of us explain to them why some people don't share that orientation with them?
I have never in my life seen anyone argue over whether heterosexuality is caused by nature or nurture.
But only one of these orientations can involuntarily result in the massive moral responsibilities of pregnancy, abortion, and/or parenthood. If the religious right wants to rid the world of abortion, they should be trying to make EVERYONE homosexual.
One of the main streams of theory and research in social psychology focuses on the attributions that people make about other individuals and groups. A well established finding is that when individuals and groups are perceived as "different" from a group norm, a lot of other characteristics are attributed to them, many of which are undesirable. The people who consider themselves as normal also tend to wonder what causes the other people to be different, and they are inclined to think that the differences are due to errors, illness or badness. The normies do not feel any need to explain why they have normal characteristics.
But you have to have a concept of what is "normal" and what is different from that norm. We're all unique, so the distinction between "normal" and not "normal" is, to a great extent, an arbitrary line in the sand.
Long ago, I knew a black woman from the Dominican Republic. She told me that she had no concept of racism as a child because everyone there was a different race. It was no more distinguishing than different-colored hair. Then her family moved to New York when she was 13, and suddenly she was exposed to racism.
In fact, "norms" don't even depend upon majority, as most cultures consider male the "norm," even though females make up more than half the population.
However, this piece focuses on gender ideology. I understand that you're pretty young, but the nature-vs-nurture debate over what causes homosexuality is much, much older than modern transgenderism.
It was a huge issue during the beginning of the gay rights movement, when pedophiles attached themselves to gay rights, just as they now attach themselves to the transgenderist lobby. It was easy enough to assume that the way to stop pedophilia was to stop homosexuality. If homosexuals would simply choose heterosexuality, all would be well.
There was no recognition that it is not homosexuality that correlates to pedophilia--as there are far more heterosexual pedophiles--but *males*. If MALES would simply choose not to be pedophiles, all would be well.
And it was a huge issue, as well, during the rise of AIDS, when we had absolutely no idea how to cure this deadly disease, we only knew that it largely affected gay men. It was a terrifying time, and many people believed that the terror could be ended if gay men would only (as my aunt put it) "stop doing what they're doing." If homosexuals would simply choose heterosexuality, again, all would be well.
It turned out that it wasn't about being gay. It was about promiscuous unprotected sex, which was part of just one subculture of gay men's culture (NOT lesbian). My aunt was right that promiscuous unprotected sex was the problem. She was wrong that it was homosexuality. It was not about lesbianism at all. Again: if MALES would simply choose not to have promiscuous unprotected sex, all would be well.
So who benefits from arguing that homosexuality is caused by "nurture" rather than "nature"?
Obviously, misogynists, who don't want to admit that MALE behavior is a problem among both homo- and heterosexual men, but not among straight women or lesbians.
My question is: why indulge misogynists in their argument? Why not just say, "It doesn't matter, because there's nothing wrong with choosing to be gay--but you'd better open your eyes to the massive problem of male entitlement in sexual behavior"?
During the AIDS epidemic, I was attending a 12-step program for lesbians and gay men. One guy shared his resentment towards lesbians because he had to give up his favorite pastime of anonymous sex because he might get sick, while lesbians could fool around at will. (Except that lesbians don't engage in anonymous sex in the bathroom at the bar as a matter of course.)
The difference between entitled men and non-entitled women is particularly stark in the gay community, where women and men are so distinctly separated.
Everything I've ever heard conservatives say against homosexuality was about gay MEN--who have a specific subculture of dangerous behaviors based specifically on male entitlement: public exhibitionism, promiscuity, disdain for protection, etc.
Gay WOMEN don't have that specific subculture of dangerous behaviors. I'm not sure conservatives even know lesbians exist.
Women get blamed for men's behavior all the time. To be lesbian and be oppressed by homophobia and ALSO blamed for gay men's behavior must be particularly galling.
I'm with you on this one. When I came out in the early 70s there was a category called "political lesbians," i.e., progressive women who became convinced by feminist theory that they could, or should, be lesbians, because patriarchy. Lesbian superstar Alix Dobkin (RIP) even wrote an anthem about it, which was very popular at festivals, but sadly, not true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjzs_x5bPiA
That's not how it works, and the "political dykes" inevitably dropped out. However, there's no doubt that a lesbian feminist analysis helped me come out, because I'd been hiding my attraction to women since I was a young child. I simply just needed to SEE another lesbian who said "I am a lesbian." Whew, what a relief.
I do believe that biology is involved to some extent, although maybe not always, although Glenna isn't convinced. I've done my own thoroughly unscientific study based on my own observations: women with older brothers are more likely to be lesbians and, in particular, to be gender nonconforming. (I said it's unscientific.)
Also, women come out at different ages. Sometimes it happens late in life...maybe after a divorce or death of their husband, and a door that was closed opens on its own.
My sister says for her it's a total choice, as well as for most of her friends. She's also been attracted to men but emotionally and spiritually decided to be with women. Saying it's biological for everyone or even most, like male homosexuality, has lots of very bad implications for lesbian women and is not borne out by studies.
One thing I know for sure: I can’t change my lesbian sexual orientation, and because of that, I don’t view it as a choice. It sounds like your sister is bisexual, in which case, perhaps the choice she’s making is to have relationships exclusively with women. That’s perfectly understandable to me. I’m curious as to what you think the bad implications would be if the etiology of lesbianism were biological. I’m willing to go wherever the evidence leads us.
I was disappointed to hear that Bari Weiss is now promoting a watered-down version of transgender corruption and has adopted a liberal DEI perspective by featuring a trans-identified man on her podcast…especially since The Free Press has done some groundbreaking work on the topic.
In 2023, the Free Press gained mainstream media attention by featuring whistleblower Jamie Reed, a case manager at The Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Reed exposed the Center’s policy of transitioning children who were suffering serious psychological disorders, rather than giving them the therapy they needed. Bari was instrumental in disseminating Reed’s revelations through the Free Press, and Reed has gone on to do significant activism against the medical transitioning of children, many of whom would grow up to be lesbian and gay if just left alone.
I figured that Weiss was headed in that direction after I listened to her conversations with Brianna Wu. Weiss gushed about how Wu was just as feminine as she was, or some such, causing me to think she had never before spoken with a trans-identified male who passes well. It was like, "Oh my gosh, I had no idea that you guys were so pretty and so nice!" Weiss's surprised and admiring tone indicates to me that she didn't have first hand experience of the subject she spent so much time talking about previously.
Dear Kara, Thank you for all the fantastic work you are doing. You give us all hope. I bought and am reading your great book, The Reckoning, and am duly impressed by all the research you brought together. It constitutes an invaluable document for future studies. Seeing your mention of GLAAD I remember reading about them in the "Fag Rag" decades ago as having formed to defend a group of rich pedophiles in Revere Massachusetts. This is a background it seems that they've been able to obfuscate very successfully. In your book you date GLAAD's formation much later than it actually occurred. For future reference I'm giving you some links to their past activities. See below:
In June 1977, police arrested the house's owner and announced that it was the national headquarters of a sordid, pornographic sex ring. It was a stretch to call it a “ring,” but Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne declared that the arrests were just “the tip of the iceberg.” There had to be other perverted people in other wood-shingled houses. And Byrne had a way to catch them: A hotline people could call with anonymous tips about molesters.
In fact, man-boy relationships had been flourishing-not particularly secretly-for years in Revere. Revere Beach, on the eastern fringes of this working-class city, was a notorious cruising ground for men and boys. “It's surprising that no one has stumbled onto a 'sex ring' in Revere before this,” Frank Rose wrote in a 1978 Village Voice piece about the scandal.
Everybody was talking about the case, which led to the indictments of 24 men. During an interview on a Boston television station, poet and outspoken boy-lover Allen Ginsberg joked about the scandal. “I had sex when I was 8 with a man in the back of my grandfather's candy store in Revere, and I turned out okay,” Ginsberg declared before being hurried off-stage as the station cut to a commercial.
That moment aside, there was little to chuckle about that year for gays in general, and men who liked boys in particular. In Florida, beauty queen Anita Bryant was pushing her “Save Our Children” campaign, spearheading the repeal of budding gay-rights ordinances. In Toronto, police raided the city's gay newspaper after it published an article entitled “Men Loving Boys Loving Men.” From coast to coast, states began enacting tougher laws against child pornography, alluding to the need to protect children from the clutches of homosexual adults.
Staffers at Fag Rag, a now-defunct Boston-based radical gay paper, decided to fight back. They formed a committee to defend the suspects in Revere and rally against police harassment. Two groups emerged from that committee. One, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is still a respected legal organization. The other, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, would soon become the most despised group of men in America.
NAMBLA Recollections: A Few Regrets, Much to Be Proud of
20th Anniversary edition, NAMBLA Bulletin, October 1999, Issue 20.2
by Tom Reeves
As it happened, it was 1969 - the year of Stonewall - when boys first found me. I didn't know anything about the impending shift in the homosexual paradigm. I thought I saw my place in this glorious gay liberation movement - so kin to the civil rights and anti-war struggles I'd been part of. Traveling two years later to Boston in search of that movement, I joined FAG RAG, whose collective members saw something in my sexual expression which embodied their radical but playful vision. Over the next decade, I was involved with many new gay organizations: Gay Community News, Boston Area Gay & Lesbian Youth (BAGLY), Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the Gay Liberation Front, and much later Act Up.
New Allegations of Decades-Old Sexual Abuse Emerge at Newton Private School
By Shan Wang
December 9, 2014
Several former students of an all-boys boarding school in Newton claim they were sexually abused by four teachers at the school between 1968 and 1976. Mitchell Garabedian, a prominent local attorney who specializes in sex abuse cases, is planning to file a lawsuit on behalf of two students
Today is my birthday, and I cannot think of a better birthday present than this conversation between my two fave legal mavens. (I am now as old as Jack Benny—for those who may not know the reference, this means I am 39 and have been for 37 years.) I loved, loved, loved, the appreciation of definitions, and wish more folks understood how foundational they are to everything in law. I hope you two might do a sequel or two. I would be fascinated to hear an exploration of radical feminism—and I would also take delight in a convo between Glenna and Julie Bindel, perhaps emceed by Kara. (In the interests of partial disclosure, I am an agnostic lesbian on the issue of the science.) Thank you both so much for all!
Happy birthday!!
...and many more.
Jack Benny.
:D :D :D
Happy birthday, Susan!
Thank you, Glenna! ❤️🥳 🎂
Great conversation! I appreciate Glenna’s comments about the science of sexual orientation and the importance of furthering it. I was aware of being a lesbian since the age of 4, which was around the year 1966. My experience might be unusual, and I certainly didn’t have a name for how I felt, but it’s the truth. The idea that sexual orientation is a choice, politically informed or otherwise, has never made a lick of sense to me.
A side note on Judith Butler. I was a PhD student in philosophy from the late 1980s into the 1990s. I was in a groovy department that focused on the sexy Continental, rather than the stodgy Anglo American, tradition, so Butler was revered in my orbit. I was also tuned into feminist philosophy and SWIP (Society of Women Philosophy) where all the feminist philosophers congregated. I went to many, many SWIP conferences and I can’t ever recall seeing Butler at any of them. So, I find it odd that she is viewed today as a feminist. I’m not suggesting her work wasn’t informed to some degree by feminist thought, just that she wasn’t one of the feminist philosophers that everyone recognized as such during that time, like Marilyn Frye, Vicky Spelman, Claudia Card, etc.
I would love to hear an episode where the two of you talk about radical feminism, and what distinguishes it from other types of feminism.
In our day, feminism was just feminism.
It's only been since the 1990s misogynist capture of the word "feminism" as "3rd-wave" or "liberal feminism" that ordinary feminists have felt pushed into calling ourselves "radical feminists" to distinguish from misogynist women calling themselves "feminists."
Radical feminists have always existed in our lifetime. But most of us calling ourselves radical now are not particularly radical. We're just regular ole bog-standard feminists who are NOT misogynists.
I've gone back to calling myself a women's libber.
“But most of us calling ourselves radical now are not particularly radical. We're just regular ole bog-standard feminists who are NOT misogynists.” This is me, exactly!
I suspect you and I are about the same age.
I'm 63.
I am glad to be your compatriot, though our ages differ a bit! (See my comment below.)
One thing that's always bothered me about the nature vs nurture arguments over homosexuality is that I, personally, don't think it matters. So what if someone chooses homosexuality over heterosexuality? Why shouldn't they? Who does it hurt? It's not appropriation. It doesn't violate anyone else's rights, privacy, dignity, or safety.
Is it just the insecurities of certain heterosexuals about their *own* orientation that we're addressing? Do they need to be constantly reassured that heterosexuality is "normal," so they expect the rest of us explain to them why some people don't share that orientation with them?
I have never in my life seen anyone argue over whether heterosexuality is caused by nature or nurture.
But only one of these orientations can involuntarily result in the massive moral responsibilities of pregnancy, abortion, and/or parenthood. If the religious right wants to rid the world of abortion, they should be trying to make EVERYONE homosexual.
One of the main streams of theory and research in social psychology focuses on the attributions that people make about other individuals and groups. A well established finding is that when individuals and groups are perceived as "different" from a group norm, a lot of other characteristics are attributed to them, many of which are undesirable. The people who consider themselves as normal also tend to wonder what causes the other people to be different, and they are inclined to think that the differences are due to errors, illness or badness. The normies do not feel any need to explain why they have normal characteristics.
Right?
But you have to have a concept of what is "normal" and what is different from that norm. We're all unique, so the distinction between "normal" and not "normal" is, to a great extent, an arbitrary line in the sand.
Long ago, I knew a black woman from the Dominican Republic. She told me that she had no concept of racism as a child because everyone there was a different race. It was no more distinguishing than different-colored hair. Then her family moved to New York when she was 13, and suddenly she was exposed to racism.
In fact, "norms" don't even depend upon majority, as most cultures consider male the "norm," even though females make up more than half the population.
I wrote about why it matters
https://badfacts.substack.com/p/why-are-people-gay
Interesting. Thanks.
However, this piece focuses on gender ideology. I understand that you're pretty young, but the nature-vs-nurture debate over what causes homosexuality is much, much older than modern transgenderism.
It was a huge issue during the beginning of the gay rights movement, when pedophiles attached themselves to gay rights, just as they now attach themselves to the transgenderist lobby. It was easy enough to assume that the way to stop pedophilia was to stop homosexuality. If homosexuals would simply choose heterosexuality, all would be well.
There was no recognition that it is not homosexuality that correlates to pedophilia--as there are far more heterosexual pedophiles--but *males*. If MALES would simply choose not to be pedophiles, all would be well.
And it was a huge issue, as well, during the rise of AIDS, when we had absolutely no idea how to cure this deadly disease, we only knew that it largely affected gay men. It was a terrifying time, and many people believed that the terror could be ended if gay men would only (as my aunt put it) "stop doing what they're doing." If homosexuals would simply choose heterosexuality, again, all would be well.
It turned out that it wasn't about being gay. It was about promiscuous unprotected sex, which was part of just one subculture of gay men's culture (NOT lesbian). My aunt was right that promiscuous unprotected sex was the problem. She was wrong that it was homosexuality. It was not about lesbianism at all. Again: if MALES would simply choose not to have promiscuous unprotected sex, all would be well.
So who benefits from arguing that homosexuality is caused by "nurture" rather than "nature"?
Obviously, misogynists, who don't want to admit that MALE behavior is a problem among both homo- and heterosexual men, but not among straight women or lesbians.
My question is: why indulge misogynists in their argument? Why not just say, "It doesn't matter, because there's nothing wrong with choosing to be gay--but you'd better open your eyes to the massive problem of male entitlement in sexual behavior"?
I will never turn away from the truth because the truth might help someone I don't like
I won't either.
During the AIDS epidemic, I was attending a 12-step program for lesbians and gay men. One guy shared his resentment towards lesbians because he had to give up his favorite pastime of anonymous sex because he might get sick, while lesbians could fool around at will. (Except that lesbians don't engage in anonymous sex in the bathroom at the bar as a matter of course.)
At least he was honest.
The difference between entitled men and non-entitled women is particularly stark in the gay community, where women and men are so distinctly separated.
Everything I've ever heard conservatives say against homosexuality was about gay MEN--who have a specific subculture of dangerous behaviors based specifically on male entitlement: public exhibitionism, promiscuity, disdain for protection, etc.
Gay WOMEN don't have that specific subculture of dangerous behaviors. I'm not sure conservatives even know lesbians exist.
Women get blamed for men's behavior all the time. To be lesbian and be oppressed by homophobia and ALSO blamed for gay men's behavior must be particularly galling.
I'm with you on this one. When I came out in the early 70s there was a category called "political lesbians," i.e., progressive women who became convinced by feminist theory that they could, or should, be lesbians, because patriarchy. Lesbian superstar Alix Dobkin (RIP) even wrote an anthem about it, which was very popular at festivals, but sadly, not true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjzs_x5bPiA
That's not how it works, and the "political dykes" inevitably dropped out. However, there's no doubt that a lesbian feminist analysis helped me come out, because I'd been hiding my attraction to women since I was a young child. I simply just needed to SEE another lesbian who said "I am a lesbian." Whew, what a relief.
I do believe that biology is involved to some extent, although maybe not always, although Glenna isn't convinced. I've done my own thoroughly unscientific study based on my own observations: women with older brothers are more likely to be lesbians and, in particular, to be gender nonconforming. (I said it's unscientific.)
Also, women come out at different ages. Sometimes it happens late in life...maybe after a divorce or death of their husband, and a door that was closed opens on its own.
My sister says for her it's a total choice, as well as for most of her friends. She's also been attracted to men but emotionally and spiritually decided to be with women. Saying it's biological for everyone or even most, like male homosexuality, has lots of very bad implications for lesbian women and is not borne out by studies.
One thing I know for sure: I can’t change my lesbian sexual orientation, and because of that, I don’t view it as a choice. It sounds like your sister is bisexual, in which case, perhaps the choice she’s making is to have relationships exclusively with women. That’s perfectly understandable to me. I’m curious as to what you think the bad implications would be if the etiology of lesbianism were biological. I’m willing to go wherever the evidence leads us.
I was disappointed to hear that Bari Weiss is now promoting a watered-down version of transgender corruption and has adopted a liberal DEI perspective by featuring a trans-identified man on her podcast…especially since The Free Press has done some groundbreaking work on the topic.
In 2023, the Free Press gained mainstream media attention by featuring whistleblower Jamie Reed, a case manager at The Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Reed exposed the Center’s policy of transitioning children who were suffering serious psychological disorders, rather than giving them the therapy they needed. Bari was instrumental in disseminating Reed’s revelations through the Free Press, and Reed has gone on to do significant activism against the medical transitioning of children, many of whom would grow up to be lesbian and gay if just left alone.
I figured that Weiss was headed in that direction after I listened to her conversations with Brianna Wu. Weiss gushed about how Wu was just as feminine as she was, or some such, causing me to think she had never before spoken with a trans-identified male who passes well. It was like, "Oh my gosh, I had no idea that you guys were so pretty and so nice!" Weiss's surprised and admiring tone indicates to me that she didn't have first hand experience of the subject she spent so much time talking about previously.
oy, vey iz mir (Bari knows what that means)
Yes, this was a big disappointment.
It makes me wonder if she’s gotten too comfortable to speak truth to power as she did when she quit the New York Times.
Great conversation with Glenna! I don’t know how I missed it but glad you reminded us it was there!
Dear Kara, Thank you for all the fantastic work you are doing. You give us all hope. I bought and am reading your great book, The Reckoning, and am duly impressed by all the research you brought together. It constitutes an invaluable document for future studies. Seeing your mention of GLAAD I remember reading about them in the "Fag Rag" decades ago as having formed to defend a group of rich pedophiles in Revere Massachusetts. This is a background it seems that they've been able to obfuscate very successfully. In your book you date GLAAD's formation much later than it actually occurred. For future reference I'm giving you some links to their past activities. See below:
Boy Crazy
By Benoit Denizet-Lewis· 5/15/2006
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/2006/05/15/boy-crazy/
In June 1977, police arrested the house's owner and announced that it was the national headquarters of a sordid, pornographic sex ring. It was a stretch to call it a “ring,” but Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne declared that the arrests were just “the tip of the iceberg.” There had to be other perverted people in other wood-shingled houses. And Byrne had a way to catch them: A hotline people could call with anonymous tips about molesters.
In fact, man-boy relationships had been flourishing-not particularly secretly-for years in Revere. Revere Beach, on the eastern fringes of this working-class city, was a notorious cruising ground for men and boys. “It's surprising that no one has stumbled onto a 'sex ring' in Revere before this,” Frank Rose wrote in a 1978 Village Voice piece about the scandal.
Everybody was talking about the case, which led to the indictments of 24 men. During an interview on a Boston television station, poet and outspoken boy-lover Allen Ginsberg joked about the scandal. “I had sex when I was 8 with a man in the back of my grandfather's candy store in Revere, and I turned out okay,” Ginsberg declared before being hurried off-stage as the station cut to a commercial.
That moment aside, there was little to chuckle about that year for gays in general, and men who liked boys in particular. In Florida, beauty queen Anita Bryant was pushing her “Save Our Children” campaign, spearheading the repeal of budding gay-rights ordinances. In Toronto, police raided the city's gay newspaper after it published an article entitled “Men Loving Boys Loving Men.” From coast to coast, states began enacting tougher laws against child pornography, alluding to the need to protect children from the clutches of homosexual adults.
Staffers at Fag Rag, a now-defunct Boston-based radical gay paper, decided to fight back. They formed a committee to defend the suspects in Revere and rally against police harassment. Two groups emerged from that committee. One, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is still a respected legal organization. The other, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, would soon become the most despised group of men in America.
--------------------
https://www.nambla.org/tom_reeves_writings.html
NAMBLA Recollections: A Few Regrets, Much to Be Proud of
20th Anniversary edition, NAMBLA Bulletin, October 1999, Issue 20.2
by Tom Reeves
As it happened, it was 1969 - the year of Stonewall - when boys first found me. I didn't know anything about the impending shift in the homosexual paradigm. I thought I saw my place in this glorious gay liberation movement - so kin to the civil rights and anti-war struggles I'd been part of. Traveling two years later to Boston in search of that movement, I joined FAG RAG, whose collective members saw something in my sexual expression which embodied their radical but playful vision. Over the next decade, I was involved with many new gay organizations: Gay Community News, Boston Area Gay & Lesbian Youth (BAGLY), Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the Gay Liberation Front, and much later Act Up.
--------------------
Boston.com
New Allegations of Decades-Old Sexual Abuse Emerge at Newton Private School
By Shan Wang
December 9, 2014
Several former students of an all-boys boarding school in Newton claim they were sexually abused by four teachers at the school between 1968 and 1976. Mitchell Garabedian, a prominent local attorney who specializes in sex abuse cases, is planning to file a lawsuit on behalf of two students
Actually the science studies were MADE FOR gay males to get marriage laws passed.
Can Glenna please post the lesbian/gay science studies she's citing? Thanks!
https://badfacts.substack.com/p/why-are-people-gay