Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
When you study LGBTQ+ activists, you're not just memorizing names and dates—you're tracing how different strategies, identities, and historical moments shaped the movement for equality. These figures demonstrate core concepts you'll be tested on: intersectionality, assimilationist versus liberationist approaches, the politics of visibility, and how social movements build power over time. Understanding who fought for what—and who got left behind in early movement priorities—reveals the tensions and debates that still define LGBTQ+ politics today.
Each activist on this list represents a particular theory of change. Some worked within existing systems (courts, legislatures, professional organizations), while others rejected respectability politics entirely and demanded radical transformation. Pay attention to how race, class, and gender identity shaped whose voices were centered and whose were marginalized within the movement itself. Don't just memorize facts—know what concept each activist illustrates and how their approach compares to others on this list.
These activists believed that visibility, confrontation, and community care—not polite lobbying—would win liberation. Their approach prioritized the most marginalized members of the community and rejected the idea that LGBTQ+ people needed to appear "respectable" to deserve rights.
Compare: Marsha P. Johnson vs. Stormé DeLarverie—both were present at Stonewall and committed to direct action, but Johnson's work through STAR emphasized mutual aid and institutional building while DeLarverie focused on immediate physical protection. If asked about different models of grassroots activism, these two illustrate complementary approaches.
These activists believed that changing laws, policies, and professional standards would create lasting protection for LGBTQ+ people. Their approach required engaging with institutions that had historically excluded or pathologized queer and trans people.
Compare: Harvey Milk vs. Edith Windsor—both worked within legal and political systems, but Milk sought elected office to create change from inside government while Windsor used the courts as a plaintiff. Their approaches illustrate two pathways for institutional activism: electoral politics versus litigation strategies.
The AIDS crisis demanded immediate action when governments refused to respond. These activists understood that silence equaled death and that confrontational tactics were necessary to force pharmaceutical companies and politicians to treat LGBTQ+ lives as worth saving.
Compare: Larry Kramer vs. Harvey Milk—both were outspoken and confrontational, but Kramer operated primarily outside electoral politics, using protest and cultural production to shame institutions into action. Milk believed in gaining power through the ballot box. Consider how different historical moments (pre-AIDS optimism versus crisis) shaped their strategic choices.
These activists insisted that LGBTQ+ liberation could not be separated from struggles against racism, sexism, and economic injustice. Their intellectual and activist work laid the groundwork for understanding how multiple forms of oppression interact and compound.
Compare: Audre Lorde vs. Bayard Rustin—both insisted on intersectional analysis, but Lorde worked primarily through writing and women's communities while Rustin operated within male-dominated civil rights organizations that often marginalized him. Their different positions illustrate how gender shaped whose intersectional insights were celebrated versus suppressed during their lifetimes.
These activists understood that cultural representation shapes political possibility. By becoming visible in mainstream media, they challenged stereotypes and made LGBTQ+ identities legible to broader audiences—though visibility politics also carries risks and limitations.
Compare: Laverne Cox vs. Marsha P. Johnson—both are Black trans women who became iconic figures, but in radically different eras and through different means. Johnson's visibility came through street activism and community care; Cox's came through mainstream media success. Consider what each path makes possible and what it forecloses.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Stonewall and direct action | Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, Stormé DeLarverie |
| Intersectionality | Audre Lorde, Bayard Rustin, Sylvia Rivera |
| Legal/institutional change | Edith Windsor, Barbara Gittings, Harvey Milk |
| AIDS activism | Larry Kramer, Marsha P. Johnson |
| Trans-specific advocacy | Sylvia Rivera, Laverne Cox, Marsha P. Johnson |
| Electoral politics | Harvey Milk |
| Cultural production/media | Audre Lorde, Larry Kramer, Laverne Cox |
| Respectability politics critique | Sylvia Rivera, Marsha P. Johnson |
Which two activists co-founded STAR, and what gap in mainstream LGBTQ+ organizing were they trying to address?
Compare the strategic approaches of Harvey Milk and Larry Kramer. How did their different historical contexts (pre-AIDS versus AIDS crisis) shape their theories of change?
Both Audre Lorde and Bayard Rustin are associated with intersectional thinking. What made their positions within their respective movements different, and how did gender affect whose analysis was centered?
If an essay question asked you to evaluate the relationship between visibility and liberation, which activists would you use as examples of different positions on this debate? What are the potential limitations of visibility as a political strategy?
Sylvia Rivera famously criticized mainstream gay rights organizations in her 1973 speech at Christopher Street Liberation Day. Based on what you know about her activism, what tensions within the LGBTQ+ movement was she highlighting, and how do those tensions persist today?