Queer Censorship in US LGBTQ+ Movements Since World War II
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
History in the Making Volume 13 Article 6 January 2020 A Different Kind of Closet: Queer Censorship in U.S. LGBTQ+ Movements since World War II James Martin CSUSB Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-in-the-making Part of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies Commons Recommended Citation Martin, James (2020) "A Different Kind of Closet: Queer Censorship in U.S. LGBTQ+ Movements since World War II," History in the Making: Vol. 13 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-in-the-making/vol13/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in History in the Making by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Different Kind of Closet: Queer Censorship in U.S. LGBTQ+ Movements since World War II By James Martin Abstract: Since World War II, there has been an increased visibility of LGBTQ+ communities in the United States; however, this visibility has noticeably focused on “types” of queer people – mainly white, middle class, cisgender gays and lesbians. History remembers the 1969 Stonewall Inn riots as the catalyst that launched the movement for gay rights and brought forth a new fight for civil and social justice. This paper analyzes the restrictions, within LGBTQ+ communities, that have been placed on transpersons and gender nonconforming people before and after Stonewall. While the riots at the Stonewall Inn were demonstrative of a fight ready to be fought, there were many factors that contributed to the push for gay rights. What this paper argues is that these factors were not always gay or white and did not always fit into a category; emphasis will be placed on queer leaders liKe Stormé DeLarverie, Sylvia Rivera, and the fearless ladies in San Francisco’s Tenderloin District. Movements for gay rights and social justice in the United States have come in many forms, stemming from early attempts in the hegemonic 1950s and continuing into the twenty-first century with the ongoing struggle for equality for trans people. Apart from the contemporary LGBTQ+ movement for trans rights, a noticeable trend in the history of queer activism has been the absence of 33 A Different Kind of Closet queerness1 in historical memory. “Absence of queerness” in this sense includes the erasure of champion activists that were not gay white men, but trans women, butch lesbians, and queer of color. Notable LGBTQ+ movements did not break out until the end of World War II; however, this analysis will consider the decades after the Civil War, with the rising establishment of a gendered social order. In breaking down the social acceptance of homosexuality and queerness since the nineteenth century, movements and organizations for gender and sexuality will be examined to reveal censorship of sexual fluidity and transgenderism within LGBTQ+ communities, especially after World War II. Separate Spheres and the Development of Homosexual Life “Separate Spheres” developed out of the nineteenth century and promoted a binary of gender standards that set men and women apart from each other in terms of expectations and public visibility.2 The idea of separating men and women into “spheres” creates a set of positions in which the two genders must remain – with men public and visible and women private and invisible. The development of queer communities was also centered around an idea of “visibility,” which is deeply rooted in the spheres of a male public that does not allow the privacies of a female world to be adequately represented. Metaphorical spheres influenced the growth of queer community and sexual identity simply by allowing them to exist. However, these same spheres worked to suppress lesbian expression by promoting a male world of publicity – one where the gay male community could grow much easier. 1 “Queer” in this paper will refer to LGBTQ+ people that were not Middle class, gay, white Men – those of which historical meMory has largely created these movements to be about. “Queer” will examine the historical contributions of trans woMen, drag queens, butch lesbians, and queer of color. 2 John D’EMilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity” in Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality, ed. Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, & Sharan Thompson (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1983), 105. 34 James Martin After the end of the Civil War and the fall of Reconstruction, America began to establish a gendered order, with the enforcement of a “Separate Spheres” mindset. Jim Crow and Separate Sphere ideologies were prevalent in this period to reinforce a patriarchal, white supremacist order that had been challenged by Reconstruction. Siobhan Somerville speaks heavily to the rise of ideas of race and sexuality coming through in the post-Civil War period. Somerville describes the application of Darwinian theories to reinforce sexual and racial prejudices, whereas, “analogies between gender and race structured the logic of hierarchical rankings of bodies.”3 Race and gender were becoming tools used to reinforce and institutionalize an establishment of a white authority, which would carry over well into the next century. Sexuality was now being used to further install ideas of a more dominant race of whites that acted within its own sets of standardized sexuality that they insisted to be the norm. Social changes seemed to be too much, too soon for the white population – creating an urge for whites to strike back and suppress racial and sexual liberties. Among these efforts to reestablish order and retaliate, science proved to be a proponent of the reinforcement of a white, heteronormative4 hierarchy. Psychologists worked diligently to find a connection between race and sexual “inversion” – as seen in Margaret Otis’ 1913 study of an all-girl institution that witnessed same-sex acts of intimacy.5 Otis problematically describes the relationship of two girls – one white, one black – wherein she expresses that in the relationship, the “colored girl she loved seemed the man.”6 When considering that the white girl in the relationship describes her partner as “the man,” this speaks to the 3 Siobhan Somerville, Queering the Color Line (London: Duke University Press, 2000), 24. 4 GLSEN defines “heteronorMative” as the assuMption that heterosexual identity is the norm in society. https://www.glsen.org/taxonomy/terM/35. 5 Somerville, “Scientific RacisM and the Invention of the HoMosexual Body,” 24. 6 Ibid. 35 A Different Kind of Closet deep-rooted establishment of racial and gender orders that grew between the late-nineteenth century and the early-twentieth century. The already racially categorized girl is now being sexually categorized as “the man,” while the white girl maintains her femininity. In reassigning the African American girl’s gender identity, white America is redefining black queerness and assuming that she must take the role of the “man” in the relationship because of her skin color. Pre-industrial relationships expressed a form of intimacy that has since been unmatched in America without the supposition of sexual contact. America moving into a more industrialized state did provide greater opportunities for people that needed solace away from home, where they were subject to familial traditions and age-old customs. Same-sex intimacy between men was being given a time limit, though, where it was only allowed to exist within one period of their lifetime and had to, somehow, manage to make itself disappear. E. Anthony Rotundo describes nineteenth century intimacies between men as understanding, compassionate supporters of one another. Rotundo insists these intimacies to be vital to men. They serve to ease the transition of boyhood to manhood – referring to the period of romantic friendship in men as “youth.”7 Romantic friendships in men proved pivotal in helping them move through the life course, before they ultimately found marriage and an occupation, and had to abandon these homosocial relationships upon “manhood” – whatever point that was, was unclear. This is evident in the case of “James,” a Dartmouth student, who apologizes, in a letter describing a night with his partner, for crying – but does not apologize for his physical relationship with the other man.8 The sphere for women, however, kept their lives away from the public eye – allowing different spaces in time for homosocial relationships to exist, while also closeting female sexuality. 7 E. Anthony Rotundo, “RoMantic Friendship: Male IntiMacy and Middle-Class Youth in the Northern United States, 1800-1900,” Journal of Social History 23, no. 1 (1989): 2. 8 Ibid., 6. 36 James Martin Romantic friendships in women proved more long-term and committal in this period of post-war America. Carroll Smith- Rosenberg and Karen Hansen work contrarily to Rotundo, depicting the continuity that existed within female romantic friendships. Hansen follows the love story of two African American women, Addie Brown and Rebecca Primus, that transcended class boundaries,9 something that was unlike what Smith-Rosenberg was sharing. Smith-Rosenberg draws out the relationships between white women, the first of Sarah Butler Wister and Jeannie Field Musgrove10 and the second of Molly and Helena.11 Hansen’s description follows with an unclear timeline for how Addie and Rebecca met, but pointed out that both women were from significantly different social classes.12 Same-sex relationships between men were confined within class and social boundaries (unless in times of war), while same-sex relationships among women would cross those same barriers. Thus, the spheres in which men and women had traditionally existed had shaped the ways their relationships could take form and what boundaries they were able to cross in the process. Another vital aspect to understanding the development of LGBTQ+ communities is the concept of space.