Written by Kate Taylor
The June 1969 riots that followed a police raid on the popular Stonewall Inn in New York City captured the attention of the US press, with its physical confrontations showing that LGBTQ+ individuals were capable of fighting back against discrimination. First, the issue raised by the question’s use of ‘history’ as a singular entity must be addressed: considering the LGBTQ+ population of the USA to be a homogenous group distorts its intricate histories and differing aims. They do not have one history. Therefore, acknowledging the centrality of intersectionality, defined by Kimberle Crenshaw as “multiple avenues through which… oppression [is] experienced,” is crucial in determining the extent of change for sub-groups based on gender, race, etc. This essay will treat ‘radical change’ as a significant advance towards group’s aims, explored in the context of US gay male, lesbian female, and transgender movements. Paradoxically, this essay will engage with a pre- (encompassing events after WWII) and post-Stonewall narrative to ascertain the centrality of Stonewall in subsequent change, concluding that diverse and complex LGBTQ+ histories are distorted by treating the riots as a moment of radical change for all within its umbrella.
Gay Men:
Examining the progress and achievements in gay male rights before and after the Stonewall Riots, it is evident that Stonewall wasn’t a moment of radical change but simply part of a longer struggle. Evelyn Hooker’s 1956 psychological testing of straight versus gay men challenged the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) classification of homosexuality as a mental illness, finding no difference between the brain functions of the two groups. In spite of compelling evidence against the classification, the APA did not remove it until 1973, suggesting that subsequent events including Stonewall led to this advance. Throughout the 1960s, the Mattachine Society used a “mask of respectability,” including orderly dressing for the 1968 Philadelphia Independence Hall protest, to prevent being labelled radical. Despite Marc Stein’s description of Stonewall as a “watershed” in achievements of the US gay rights movement due to its commemoration, as seen with annual memorial parades, it is clear that treating Stonewall as a radical change negates the significance of such earlier advances.
The Gay Liberation Front (GLF) and Gay Activists Alliance (GAA) groups highlight a shift in attitudes, with Stonewall giving people the bravery to step out of the shadows. As a military coalition within the New Left Front, the GLF had aims beyond gay rights; this is illustrated by military homosexuality laws and the anti-Vietnam War’s campaign to “suck cock to beat the draft.” Crucially, Stonewall’s limited impact is evident from the GLF’s “drying up” in the 1970s due to reduced popularity in radicalism. Conversely, the GAA only endorsed groups directly related to gay rights, making evident the divisions within the wider movement. Bob Kohler described the GAA’s “dirty secret,” its desire for white power and disregard for issues faced by gay men of colour, which led many to leave in the 1970s. The GAA’s prioritisation of their white identity over homosexuality highlights that intersectionality is crucial to understanding LGBTQ+ rights during this period.
AIDs epidemics of the 1980s and 90s led to a “significant increase” in tolerance towards the morality of homosexuality. Due to shared experiences, cooperation was renewed between gay and lesbian groups, with goals of reducing stigma and increasing treatments access. Crucially, it gave gay rights campaigners an avenue into government discussion as AIDs activists, allowing advocacy at the highest level. Therefore, incorrectly considering the Stonewall Riots to be a moment of radical change ignores divisions within the movements and encourages the dismissal of subsequent advances, distorting its histories.
Lesbian Women:
In investigating the successes and aims central to the development of lesbian rights before and after the Stonewall Riots, it is evident that claiming Stonewall to be a moment of radical change distorts lesbian histories by ignoring the subsequent struggle. During the 1960s, the Daughters of Bilitis worked to remove the sexualisation of lesbians created by post-war literature. In doing so, they highlighted conservative femininity to stress similarities between lesbian and straight women. This included organising fashion shows to encourage ‘butch’ lesbians to dress traditionally. On the other hand, by 1969 the New York City House of Detention for Women, which house many detained for crimes relating to lesbianism, had become a “defiant pocket of female resistance” according to Audre Lorde, with crowds often gathering in the streets below to listen to declarations shouted from windows. Whilst this indicates an attitudinal shift towards confrontational tactics, once incarcerated, lesbians had less to lose, perhaps enabling them to express their sexuality more directly. Indeed, the post-Stonewall shift towards the New Left suggests that Stonewall was a moment of radical change in terms of ideology and tactics of lesbian groups. Suddenly, like their male counterparts, sexuality was embraced more openly. However, it should be noted that this didn’t equate to significant progress towards their aims.
Issues of intersectionality surfaced in 1970, when lesbians split from the male-dominated New Left and joined the National Organisation of Women (NOW). Betty Friedan, NOW’s President, dismissed this “lavender menace,” with many feminists believing lesbianism to be a private matter. However, after 1971, NOW recognised the unity of lesbianism and feminism, echoed in Jill Johnson’s declaration: “lesbians are women, not homosexuals.” Therefore, treating the Stonewall Riots as a moment of radical change for lesbians addresses only their LGBTQ+ identity, distorting their histories by failing to acknowledge the struggles faced by all women under a patriarchal society.
In the post Stonewall decade, landmark court cases were central to legal improvements in lesbian rights. Of greatest significance was the 1972 Seattle Case, brought against two Christian women by their ex-husbands to gain custody of their children after the women became a couple. Although the judge ruled that lesbianism wasn’t harmful to children, and therefore the women retained custody, it was decided that the children couldn’t be raised in the same house. In this separation of motherhood and lesbianism within law, it can be inferred that progress towards social integration was slow, indicating that radical change hadn’t been seen by this point. Therefore, positioning the Stonewall Riots as a moment of radical change for lesbians in terms of progress towards their aims, distorts their histories by negating subsequent struggles for equality and integration.
The ’Third Sex’:
By considering the objectives and advances in transgender rights in the USA, it can be seen that the Stonewall Riots do not represent a moment of radical change in this movement. Indeed, presenting them as such distorts transgender histories by reducing the significance of earlier and subsequent events. Prior to Stonewall, significant advances were made in transgender rights. Most crucially, John Hopkins University Hospital opened a gender identity programme in 1966, acknowledging the need for gender-reaffirming healthcare and suggesting early medical acceptance of transitioning. Additionally, the Compton Cafeteria Riots, described by Susan Stryker as instigating “long-lasting institutional changes,” led to local groups forming to campaign for transgender rights. Of pivotal importance is the fact that the riots were all but forgotten, unlike Stonewall (being larger and lasting longer) until Stryker uncovered them in the 1990s, highlighting the danger of positioning Stonewall as a moment of radical change. Beyond distorting, it altogether ignores key elements of transgender histories.
Despite initial post-Stonewall alignment with gay and lesbian groups, the early 1970s saw a ‘watershed’ splitting due to a recognition that transgender medical and legal aims weren’t supported by the wider movement. In this case, Stonewall had a negative effect on transgender rights groups, putting their aims on the backburner for wider LGBTQ+ aims, meaning that marginalisation still occurred. Crucially, feminists felt that cross-dressing mocked women and female values, and the 1973 San Francisco feminist parade even went as far as to ban transgender participation. With this, feminists stated that transgender women were not women, thus showing the greater struggle that transgender women faced versus their male counterparts. Therefore, presenting transgender histories as a singular entity is in itself flawed as it suggests that rights improved for all transgender individuals at once, distorting their complex histories.
The 1970 formation of Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR) suggests Stonewall’s impact on the movement, being founded by Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, both of whom gained prominence because of the riots. However, Stryker suggests that STAR’s direct tactics, including barricading doors to prevent police raids on the STAR House, a “safehouse” for trans people, were related more to wider political discontent, including Watergate, than to the “call to revolution” of Stonewall. By 1980, the John Hopkins gender identity programme, along with others opened afterwards, had closed, suggesting a regression in transgender rights during the Reagan Administration. Indeed, the number of people in the USA who believed that all homosexuality was “morally wrong” increased by five per cent in the 1980s. Therefore, presenting Stonewall as a moment of radical change in transgender rights distorts transgender histories by suggesting that progress was linear in the post-Stonewall era.
Conclusions:
The positioning of the Stonewall Riots as a moment of radical change oversimplifies the effects of the action by groups and individuals preceding and following this point, distorting LGBTQ+ histories. Indeed, for all three groups examined in this essay, the struggle towards their goals, be that integration, acceptance, or a “radical coalition,” started before and continued much beyond 1969. Crucially, the concept of intersectionality explored throughout this essay highlights the further nuances in the extent of change for particular groups. This conclusion acknowledges the huge significance of Stonewall in American LGBTQ+ histories, and the impact of its legacy on continued resistance to sexuality-based oppression, but it was certainly not a point of radical change.
Bibliography
Adam, Barry D. 1995. “Gay Liberation and Lesbian Feminism.” In The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement, 81-108. New York: Twayne Publishers.
Apuzzo, Virginia, interview by Kate Davis. 2011. Stonewall Uprising
Armstrong, Elizabeth A, and M Suzanna Crage. 2006. “Movement and Memory: The making of the Stonewall myth.” American Sociological Review 724-751.
Bockting, Walter. 2019. “How Far Has Transgender Health Come Since Stonewall.” American Journal of Public Health 852-853.
Carter, David. 2009. “What made Stonewall Different .” The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review 11-14.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 2015. “Why intersectionality can’t wait.” The Washington Post. 24 September. Accessed November 7, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/.
D’Emilio, John. 2002. “Cycles of change, questions of strategy: The gay and lesbian movement after fifty years.” In The World Turned: Essays on Gay History, Politics, and Culture, by John D’Emilio, 78-98. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
—. 1998. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eisenbach, David. 2006. “From the ‘Boys in the Band” to “Street-Fighting” Man.” In Gay Power: An American Revolution, 80-115. New York : Carroll & Graf Publishers.
Halkitis, Perry N. 2019. Out in Time: The Public Lives of Gay Men from Stonewall to the Queer Generation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, Simon. 2018. “Gay Liberation and the Spirit of ’68.” In Reframing 1968: American Politics, Protest & Identity, by Martin Halliwell and Nick Witham. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
Ibson, John. 2019. “The Real Outlaws: The Male Couple before Gay Liberation .” In Men Without Maps, by John Ibson, 13-64. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press.
Kennedy, Elizabeth Lapovsky. 1995. “Telling Tales: Oral history and the construction of pre-Stonewall lesbian history.” Radical History Review 58-79.
Kissack, Terence. 1995. “Freaking Fag Revolutionaries: New York’s Gay Liberation Front, 1969-1971.” Radical History Review 105-134.
Klarman, Michael K. 2012. From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-sex Marriage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levin, Sam. 2019. Compton’s Cafeteria Riot: a historic act of resistance, three years before Stonewall. 21 June. Accessed November 19, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/21/stonewall-san-francisco-riot-tenderloin-neighborhood-trans-women.
Meeker, Martin. 2001. “Behind the Mask of Respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine Society and Male Homophile Practice, 1950s and 1960s.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 78-116.
Motschenbacher , Heiko. 2020. “Language Use before and after Stonewall: A Corpus-based Study of Gay Men’s Pre-Stonewall Narratives.” Discourse Studies 64-86.
Ruel, Erin, and Richard T Campbell. 2006. “Homophobia and HIV/AIDs: Attitude Change in the Face of an Epidemic.” Social Forces 2167-2178.
Schultz, Gretchen. 2001. “Daughters of Bilitus: Literary Genealogy and Lesbian Authenticity.” GLQ Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 377-389.
Stein, Marc. 2022. Rethinking the Gay and Lesbian Movement. New York: Routledge.
—. 2019. The Stonewall Riots: a documentary history. New York: New York University Press.
Stryker, Susan. 2017. Transgender History: the roots of today’s revolution. New York: Seal Press.
Thistlethwaite, Polly. 2019. Where Were the Lesbians in the Stonewall Riots? The Women’s House of Detention & Lesbian Resistance. New York: City University of New York Graduate Center.
Walter, Frank. 2014. Law and the Gay Rights Story: The Long Search for Equal Justice in a Divided Democracy. Rutgers University Press.
Featured Image Credit: https://www.nyclgbtsites.org/site/stonewall-inn-christopher-park/
Retrospect Journal 