2006, that was before the 'woke' craze, right?

I think that the whole "trans" thing really got going in the 1990s, actually-- that's when the straight-men-with-ladyfeelz started their siege campaign against MichFest, after all. So their efforts to colonize women's and LGB spaces/identities were already well underway by 2006. It's just that, more recently, they've been consolidating their gains, and "genderism" has become a fad, both of which make "trans" as conspicuous as the proverbial turd in a punchbowl. But it's been around wrecking havoc for a while now.

And this article is also from 2006, and it seems to suggest a heavy trans presence at the riot.

What KIND of "trans", though? Straight men with a cross-dressing fetish? i.e., those dominating the entire "trans" movement? Like, say, "Susan Stryker" ("an openly lesbian trans woman", SURPRISE SURPRISE), whose documentary on the riot is what led to this article in the first place? Not hardly. The rioters were "straight transwomen"... or, in other words: gay men. Guys like "Susan" didn't give a flying fuck about gay rights; they were at home jerking off in their wife's underwear. But of course that doesn't sound like anything to be proud of, does it? Hence Stryker's shameless attempt to conflate the actual gay men who WERE there with straight male perverts like himself, who wouldn't have been caught dead anywhere near a bunch of (F-slur)s. Despite being convinced that "trans" is a pernicious lie, I feel a lot of sympathy for these gay men; most were probably just trying to find a path for themselves within gender-role rules, where "male-attracted = woman"-- so, if they "became women", they could have a boyfriend/husband and, hopefully, some kind of semi-normal life. Not a good choice, certainly (or, god knows, fair to these poor guys), but an understandable one, given the shitty circumstances. The "Susan Strykers", though? They can rot in hell.