Latest news with #AndrewSullivan
Perth Now
3 days ago
- Automotive
- Perth Now
‘Outrageous' car wash proposed for ‘nightmare intersection'
State planners have been urged to reject a $3.5 million car wash proposed for Fremantle's South Terrace that has been described as 'outrageous' by City of Fremantle councillors. The development is proposed for 234 South Terrace in South Fremantle, owned by Glowmark Nominees, and will require the demolition of a building on that site. It will have three self-closing car-wash bays, four vacuum car bays, and a dog wash. Entry would be via South Street and exit via South Terrace. The proposed operating hours were 6.30am to 10.30pm, which the applicant had revised down from 24 hours. The site has previously been used as a temporary addition for an education establishment, boat sales yard and offices. An artist's impression of the proposed car wash. Credit: Supplied The city was asked to only comment on the proposal, which will be decided by the Metro Inner Development Assessment Panel on Wednesday. City officers recommended the council back the project, with conditions including how it will meet the recommendations of an acoustic report. But the council unanimously rejected the staff recommendation and voted in favour of Cr Andrew Sullivan's motion that the council not support the application because it was not a suitable use for the site and would affect residents' amenity. Mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge said 'at no point' did she think the proposal was a good idea, while Crs Adin Lang and Jemima Williamson-Wong both said it was 'outrageous'. Cr Ben Lawver said the site was near a 'nightmare intersection' and the proposed development would only make it worse. A stream of nearly a dozen residents speaking at the council's July 9 meeting backed this view, citing fears about the noise the car wash would create and its effect on the area's amenity and traffic. The city received 91 submissions when the proposal was advertised for comment, with 81 objections. Concerns included an increase in traffic and noise, and the development not being in keeping with the East Fremantle heritage area. Sam and Cary-Anne Harper said they lived next to the site with a 10-month-old daughter, whose nursery window faced the development. As well as noise concerns they raised fears about what impact the car wash would have on traffic. Queueing vehicles also generates loud exhausts, booming stereos, revving of engines and loud car horns, among other things. 'In the past five years that I've lived there, I've personally seen multiple car crashes, hundreds of near-misses, and consistent ignoring of no stopping or parking areas,' Mr Harper said. 'From your own city records, you'll see how frequently the traffic lights have to be replaced after they've been hit by cars taking the corner too quickly.' Mrs Harper said South Street was already hectic at the best of times. 'Transperth buses and general civilian cars already need to weave in and around this section of the road and try to avoid cars trying to enter from South Street from neighbouring streets,' she said. 'I'm really, really concerned that there's going to be an accident, if not a fatality, in the near future with how it's currently operating, let alone if there's going to be a car wash there with people frequently coming in and out.' Ian Kerr said although everyone used car washes, the proposed development was inappropriate for the area. 'Notwithstanding the site's mixed-use zoning, it is almost entirely surrounded by residential properties or, to the south, a mixed-use property with four residential units,' he said. 'The site is one of the most accessible locations by bus, walking or cycling in the inner Fremantle area, with high-frequency buses to Murdoch University and Fiona Stanley Hospital, as well as to Fremantle itself. 'If we can't get innovative medium-density housing at a location like this, I struggle to see how targets or expectations for increased population in inner Fremantle are likely to be achievable.' Ivana Nimich said a car wash would break the area's link with the city centre. 'A car wash belongs in a suburban industrialised area, not in the predominantly heritage-listed core of the city,' she said. Kylie Grills said she lived next door to the site and allowing a car wash on it would 'sterilise' it. 'A modest three-storey infill similar to the neighbouring 240 South Terrace could deliver 10 to 15 dwellings, permanent customers for local traders, and quadruple the rates base,' she said. Steven Hodgskin said the facility would 'barely meet' noise regulations and had a slim margin of error. 'Queueing vehicles also generates loud exhausts, booming stereos, revving of engines and loud car horns, among other things,' he said. Kylie Bonser said the car wash could become a late-night gathering spot, leading to 'noise, loitering and potential antisocial behaviour'. 'This proposal is not in line with the kind of Fremantle we want to live in,' she said. An officer's report said modifications to the proposal made it 'largely sympathetic' to the heritage area. 'It is considered that a motor vehicle wash will provide a convenient service for surrounding residents on a site that has historically been utilised for commercial purposes,' it said.
Fox News
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Why Andrew Sullivan says the gay rights movement has gone off the rails
There's a phrase I keep hearing these days: TAKE THE WIN. It can be applied to anyone – Donald Trump, Chuck Schumer, AOC – who notches a victory and then insists on demanding more, however unrealistic that might be. What brings this to mind is an extraordinary essay by Andrew Sullivan in the New York Times. It was Sullivan – a gay, British conservative Catholic running the New Republic – who first made the case for gay marriage back in 1989. "As it has become more acceptable for gay people to acknowledge their loves publicly, more and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and their friends. A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend." The cover story was wildly unpopular and viewed as extremist. Despite his optimism, many gays remained closeted, including in the media, for fear of repercussions. Gays in the military, before Bill Clinton, were subject to discharge or court-martial. So Sullivan's dream was seen as a faraway fantasy. Christian conservative Gary Bauer, on "Crossfire," said "this is the loopiest idea ever to come down the pike. Why are we even discussing it?" In the spring of 1996, Andrew came to me and asked me to break the story that he had AIDS, and, in part, that's why he was resigning as the New Republic's editor. He said he'd known he had the disease for three years but was in good health. "It's an awful burden being lifted," he told me. "It's hard enough to battle the disease, but when there's a secret about it, you can't help but tap into feelings of shame and guilt that just destroy you." It was not until 2015, after 37 states had already acted (with some overturned), that the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage the law of the land. And when straight couples realized their own marriages were unaffected, it gradually faded as a hot political issue. Polls now show that seven in 10 Americans support gay marriage. Gays now serve openly in the Cabinet and in state houses. "As civil rights victories go," Sullivan, still in generally good health, writes in the Times, "it doesn't get more decisive or comprehensive than this." The issue is getting plenty of media play because it's the 10th anniversary of the SCOTUS ruling. But now comes the overreach. Rather than declare victory and close up shop, the movement lurched in a dangerous new direction. Sullivan says he always supported civil rights for transgender people. And I feel the same way. But gay rights groups, with money pouring in, tried to replace the distinction between men and women with "gender identity" – and that meant an embrace of gender-altering surgery for minors. That is an issue opposed by roughly 80 percent of the country. Along with an obsession with pronouns, the movement also backed letting trans women compete in women's sports, another issue that most people find unfair, viewing them as men. The new mantra, according to Sullivan: "TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN. TRANS MEN ARE MEN." President Trump has ordered trans military members booted from the service. Sullivan, no fan of the president, says some activists reflexively oppose whatever Trump supports. "Dissenters from gender ideology are routinely unfriended, shunned and shamed. Almost all of the gay men, trans people and lesbians who have confided in me [say] that they don't agree with this… "Leave children out of it. We knew very well that any overreach there could provoke the most ancient libel against us: that we groom and abuse kids." This is one man's opinion; Sullivan allows he may be "just another old fart." As if to underscore his point about intolerance, a poster on Reddit called the piece an "incoherent mishmash" and says Sullivan is "blaming trans and LGBTQ+ activists for conservative attacks on the trans community." This from "an aging gay man whose brain is soaked in prejudice and fear." Plenty of people may disagree with Andrew Sullivan's analysis; Republican support for same-sex unions falls below 50 percent. But as the first man to crusade for gay marriage 36 years ago, and openly discuss his battle with HIV, I'd say he's earned the right to be heard.
New York Times
01-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Have Gay Rights Gone Too Far, or Not Far Enough?
To the Editor: In 'Gay People Won. So Why Does It Feel as if We're Losing?' (Opinion guest essay, June 29), Andrew Sullivan claims that trans people, by seeking to protect the civil rights necessary for them to live safely, are trying do undo the gender binary and discount the gender identity of others. But just as gay marriage did not erode the institution of marriage or make heterosexual marriages any less valid, the protection of the rights of trans folks simply has no effect on the validity of anyone else's gender. As the mother of a trans child, I am terrified by the anti-trans legislation and rhetoric currently in vogue. I am afraid for my child's safety. I'm afraid that she will not be afforded the right to feel comfortable in her own body. I'm afraid that she will view abandonment by people like Mr. Sullivan as evidence that she is not wanted in this world. One primary source of comfort for me has been the wisdom and experience of trans adults — all of whom have survived much worse. I sincerely hope that The Times will publish the views of one of those brilliant leaders sometime soon. Skylar BrettSeattle To the Editor: As a centrist Democrat and a gender‑critical gay man approaching 70, I deeply appreciate how Andrew Sullivan revives meaningful discussion and makes room for dissident voices. I was an effeminate boy who grew into a confident, masculine gay man — living proof that gender-nonconforming youth can flourish without conforming to harmful gender ideology. Today, I worry that many boys like me are at real risk of being steered into false identities — not because they belong there, but because it has become an unassailable ideological mandate. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Post
26-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Gay journalist says LGBTQ movement has gone from civil rights success to ‘madness'
Gay journalist Andrew Sullivan said Thursday that the LGBTQ movement is losing ground in America because it has become 'radicalized.' In a New York Times guest essay, Sullivan marveled at how the gay rights movement traded a legacy of civil rights successes for radical ideas that are turning off modern-day Americans, like trying to rewrite the rules of biology and advocating for child transgender treatment — all the while demonizing Americans who aren't on board with those ideas. Advertisement 'Far from celebrating victory, defending the gains, staying vigilant, but winding down as a movement that had achieved its core objectives — including the end of H.I.V. in the United States as an unstoppable plague — gay and lesbian rights groups did the opposite. Swayed by the broader liberal shift to the 'social justice' left, they radicalized,' he wrote. Sullivan detailed how the gay rights movement changed for the worse after winning most of the victories for gay, lesbian and transgender civil rights in the past few decades. It became 'a new and radical gender revolution' that he said focused 'on ending what activists saw as the oppression of the sex binary, which some critical gender and queer theorists associated with 'White supremacy,'' dissolving the 'natural distinctions between men and women in society,' and replacing 'biological sex with 'gender identity' in the law and culture.' He also said modern LGBTQ activists redefined homosexuality 'not as a neutral fact of the human condition but as a liberating ideological 'queerness' meant to subvert and 'queer' language, culture and society in myriad different ways.' Sullivan added that because of this shift, the words 'gay and lesbian' in LGBT 'all but disappeared' as it became 'L.G.B.T.Q., then L.G.B.T.Q.+, and more letters and characters kept being added: L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+ or 2S.L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+ … The plus sign referred to a seemingly infinite number of new niche identities, and, by some counts, more than 70 new 'genders.'' Advertisement Conservative gay writer and commentator Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan continued, saying that the word ''Queer' was a way of summing up the new regime, a clear sign that this really was a different movement than the gay, lesbian and transgender civil rights movement of the past.' The author, though he said he welcomed some of the changes brought by this modern movement, said he 'simply didn't buy it.' Advertisement 'I didn't and don't believe that being a man or a woman has nothing to do with biology. My sexual orientation is based on a biological distinction between men and women: I'm attracted to the former and not to the latter. And now I was supposed to believe the difference didn't exist?' He called this development 'madness,' writing, 'But abolishing the sex binary for the entire society? That's a whole other thing entirely. And madness, I believe. What if I redefined what it is to be heterosexual and imposed it on straight people?' 'They demanded the entire society change in a fundamental way so that the sex binary no longer counted,' he said, noting how dissent with this principle was 'equated with bigotry.' The other major problem with this new version of the gay rights movement, he said, was the preoccupation with children's sexual orientations. Advertisement Sullivan continued, 'But this illiberalism made a fateful, strategic mistake. In the gay rights movement, there had always been an unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it. We knew very well that any overreach there could provoke the most ancient blood libel against us: that we groom and abuse kids… So what did the gender revolutionaries go and do? They focused almost entirely on children and minors.' He detailed how gender ideology proponents taught kids that 'being a boy or a girl was something they could choose and change at will,' allowed biological males to compete in female sports, and, in some places, allowed kids to socially transition at school 'without their parents' knowledge or permission.' The author then mentioned the 'most radical of all: gender-affirming care for minors, which can lead to irreversible sex changes for children.' Though Sullivan said he welcomed some of the changes brought by this modern movement, he 'simply didn't buy it.' After mentioning the advent of these radical positions, Sullivan pointed to current polling showing people's support for the LGBTQ movement eroding. Citing a Gallup poll, he said, 'In 2021, for example, 62 percent of Americans said that transgender athletes should be able to play only on teams that matched their gender at birth; by 2023, that figure had risen to 69 percent.' 'When people who know a trans person personally were polled, only 40 percent in 2021 supported their competing in teams that matched their gender identity; by 2023, that dropped to 30 percent,' he said, mentioning another set of Gallup polls. 'On the medical question, 46 percent of Americans supported banning medical care related to gender transitions for minors in 2022. Today, as people have learned more, 56 percent do,' he said, citing Pew Research data. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Sullivan went on to note that because of this radicalism, the footholds that the gay rights movement carved out among the political center and right 'are being lost.' Advertisement 'Gallup showed Republican support for gay marriage dropping from 55 to 46 percent between 2022 and 2025,' he wrote. Sullivan concluded his piece by urging fellow liberals to protect the successes of the gay rights movement and not sacrifice them for radical ideology. 'Let's not throw it away,' he said.
Fox News
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Gay journalist says LGBTQ movement has gone from civil rights success to 'madness'
Gay journalist Andrew Sullivan said Thursday that the LGBTQ movement is losing ground in America because it has become "radicalized." In a New York Times guest essay, Sullivan marveled at how the gay rights movement traded a legacy of civil rights successes for radical ideas that are turning off modern-day Americans, like trying to rewrite the rules of biology and advocating for child transgender treatment — all the while demonizing Americans who aren't on board with those ideas. "Far from celebrating victory, defending the gains, staying vigilant, but winding down as a movement that had achieved its core objectives — including the end of H.I.V. in the United States as an unstoppable plague — gay and lesbian rights groups did the opposite. Swayed by the broader liberal shift to the 'social justice' left, they radicalized," he wrote. Sullivan detailed how the gay rights movement changed for the worse after winning most of the victories for gay, lesbian and transgender civil rights in the past few decades. It became "a new and radical gender revolution" that he said focused "on ending what activists saw as the oppression of the sex binary, which some critical gender and queer theorists associated with 'White supremacy,'" dissolving the "natural distinctions between men and women in society," and replacing "biological sex with 'gender identity' in the law and culture." He also said modern LGBTQ activists redefined homosexuality "not as a neutral fact of the human condition but as a liberating ideological 'queerness' meant to subvert and 'queer' language, culture and society in myriad different ways." Sullivan added that because of this shift, the words "gay and lesbian" in LGBT "all but disappeared" as it became "L.G.B.T.Q., then L.G.B.T.Q.+, and more letters and characters kept being added: L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+ or 2S.L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+ … The plus sign referred to a seemingly infinite number of new niche identities, and, by some counts, more than 70 new 'genders.'" Sullivan continued, saying that the word "'Queer' was a way of summing up the new regime, a clear sign that this really was a different movement than the gay, lesbian and transgender civil rights movement of the past." The author, though he said he welcomed some of the changes brought by this modern movement, said he "simply didn't buy it." "I didn't and don't believe that being a man or a woman has nothing to do with biology. My sexual orientation is based on a biological distinction between men and women: I'm attracted to the former and not to the latter. And now I was supposed to believe the difference didn't exist?" He called this development "madness," writing, "But abolishing the sex binary for the entire society? That's a whole other thing entirely. And madness, I believe. What if I redefined what it is to be heterosexual and imposed it on straight people?" "They demanded the entire society change in a fundamental way so that the sex binary no longer counted," he said, noting how dissent with this principle was "equated with bigotry." The other major problem with this new version of the gay rights movement, he said, was the preoccupation with children's sexual orientations. Sullivan continued, "But this illiberalism made a fateful, strategic mistake. In the gay rights movement, there had always been an unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it. We knew very well that any overreach there could provoke the most ancient blood libel against us: that we groom and abuse kids… So what did the gender revolutionaries go and do? They focused almost entirely on children and minors." He detailed how gender ideology proponents taught kids that "being a boy or a girl was something they could choose and change at will," allowed biological males to compete in female sports, and, in some places, allowed kids to socially transition at school "without their parents' knowledge or permission." The author then mentioned the "most radical of all: gender-affirming care for minors, which can lead to irreversible sex changes for children." After mentioning the advent of these radical positions, Sullivan pointed to current polling showing people's support for the LGBTQ movement eroding. Citing a Gallup poll, he said, "In 2021, for example, 62 percent of Americans said that transgender athletes should be able to play only on teams that matched their gender at birth; by 2023, that figure had risen to 69 percent." "When people who know a trans person personally were polled, only 40 percent in 2021 supported their competing in teams that matched their gender identity; by 2023, that dropped to 30 percent," he said, mentioning another set of Gallup polls. "On the medical question, 46 percent of Americans supported banning medical care related to gender transitions for minors in 2022. Today, as people have learned more, 56 percent do," he said, citing Pew Research data. Sullivan went on to note that because of this radicalism, the footholds that the gay rights movement carved out among the political center and right "are being lost." "Gallup showed Republican support for gay marriage dropping from 55 to 46 percent between 2022 and 2025," he wrote. Sullivan concluded his piece by urging fellow liberals to protect the successes of the gay rights movement and not sacrifice them for radical ideology. "Let's not throw it away," he said.
