( 131-149) In this excerpt, Chauncey conveys how the perception of gay male culture (in New York) was cultivated via class during the early 20th Century. This factor allowed these men to publicly express their gender while maintaining means of socialization and networking. Chauncey delves into the experience of working class men and explains how this group were able to perform their gender and expression of it though more visual/public modes; those modes being bars/dance halls etc. On the contrary, middle class men sought private modes like exclusive clubs or gatherings ensuring discretion. Chauncey uses this parallel to convey how the performance of gender worked as a primary factor in their acceptance within society. The parallel showcases the different ways masculinity was valued and stigmatized. (Reiley Gibson)

( 179-267) In this excerpt, Chauncey emphasizes how gay expressions of identity were reinforced through recognition and support, cultivated by communities and social networking. These individuals flocked to bars or private parties to promote a structured queer social life, free from isolation. In these spaces gay men were able to create a culture where they had the ability to “perform” gender while navigating a risky social life. The distinction between the performance of gay life was separated into two groups: fairies and trade. This distinction cultivated stigma and social categories due to the fact that the working class had the ability to express their identity more openly than the middle class, which relied heavily on discretion.(Reiley Gibson)

(271-354) This excerpt shifts themes from showcasing identity to social acceptance. Chauncey expresses how the expression of masculinity became key to being accepted by society in the midst of policy changes and campaigns. These instances worked to privatize and suppress gay expressions of identity. It also cultivated ideas that men hid and concealed their queerness and desires. This concealment birthed the term “closet” in reference to men who hide gay expressions of identity. The “closet” works to maintain the safety and wellbeing of gay men, which contrasts heavily with their ability to express themselves freely in earlier instances. (Reiley Gibson)

Chauncey begins by introducing the myths of isolation, invisibility and internalization among queer men before World War II. The myth of isolation claims that there was no collective gay subculture back then and gay men were forced to live solitary lives due to systemic homophobia. While anti-gay laws were plentiful back then, the large reaction to queer men was actually one of indifference, not outward aggression and hostility. There were plenty of collective gay spaces: bathhouses, cafeterias, saloons, and even a few dedicated gay neighborhoods. (Jazper Schmidt)

The myth of invisibility, though similar to the myth of isolation, suggests that physical and social gay spaces did exist, but they were all quite well-kept secrets and thus, isolated gay men couldn't find them. The reality is that gay culture was rather well integrated into everyday life before World War II due to the development of visual signals. (Jazper Schmidt)

Chauncey's discussion surrounding the myths of invisibility and isolation serve as the introduction into his analysis of the real and very much active social spaces for gay men within New York City and how their existence not only defies the long held myths regarding homosexuality in American society but also our social understandings of recent queer histories. ( J.D.J.)

The myth of internalization argues that gay men back then internalized the ideas that they were sick, perverted, and immoral. Because of this they accepted the anti-gay laws as they didn't want to be different from the dominant culture. Chauncey argues that in fact many gay men were happy to be different and instead of just trying to fit in and fly under the radar many would proudly present themselves as gay in public despite the risks. While some would openly fight against the anti-gay laws there was also a more subtle resistance in creating space for themselves. This more quiet resistance should not be understood as acceptance of their situation, in fact the effort to be themselves despite their situation was effective resistance and showed that the dominant culture couldn't just shame gay men into going away. (Katherine Hamilton)

Gay men having internalized self-hatred because they thought that being gay was morally wrong or that something was wrong with them due to everything people were saying around them but at the same time they felt the need to express themselves wether that was through the way that they dressed as much as they could to make a statement about their existence and not be afraid of being put in jail. (Tea Aliu)

Some gay men used their gay social circles as more than just people to have sex with; for many it served as practical support in meeting the demands of urban life. For example, gay men could use their social circles to find practical things such as employment and housing, on top of the more social aspects such as relationships, both romantic and friendly. They could become fairly dependent on one another due to this. (Ezra C.)

Something I found interesting, specifically a distinction I was glad the author pointed out, was that the “gay world” wasn't actually one social world and instead consisted of multiple distinct social networks based in things such as race, class, and sexual practices. However, the author still refers to a singular gay world, as all the members of the various gay social networks were still gay and united in their queerness. (Ezra C.)

In the introduction, George Chauncy counters the myth of the queer community's invisibility or nonexistence before the late twentieth century. This myth of invisibility supposes that before the Stonewall riot of 1996, queer and gay people lived in fear and repression of their sexuality due to anti-gay sentiment and lawmaking. While the Red Scare of the Cold War and the tragedy of the Aids crisis did a lot to repress queer communities in the post-WWII era, this does not speak to the lives of queer people in the early twenty-first century. In the pre-WWII era, anti-gay laws and thoughts on queer people were often more varied than what might be thought of in this myth. (Tanner Gilikin)

An interesting aspect of homosexual interactions that I noticed while reading this chapter is the fact that these men played into effeminacy when they were being ostracized for being less masculine. Additionally, the openness of these homosexual encounters and that they were visible enough to be recognized as a group called “the fairies.” (Henry Prior)

The chapter demonstrates a separation of the middle class from the working class and how the middle class saw the working class morally. To be more specific, socializing was more private for middle class people as much of it was at the home or at private clubs rather than in saloons where working class people congregated. Additionally, middle class men saw themselves as masters of self-control which contrasted the view of working class men which they saw as lacking this self-control and engaging in vices regularly. (Henry Prior)

G. Chauncey’s analysis historicizes and, to an extent, deconstructs the framework of “hetero-homosexual binarism.” According to the author, this duality represents the currently hegemonic sexual regime, which creates and distributes identities based upon the “sex of one’s sexual partners.” As such, this perspective on gender identity is highly contingent and dynamic. Chauncey argues that this conceptual approach to male identity became conventional between the 1930s and 1950s. Subsequently, the adoption of the hetero-homosexual binary replaced earlier frameworks that prioritized gender status as the primary means of determining sexuality. In this sense, the sexual act itself did not automatically entail self or social identification with queer subjectivity, so long as the actor did not assume qualities and roles associated with women. - Nikolai Kotkov

Discussing the system of gender relations in the early twentieth century, Chauncey analyzes the “bachelor subculture” in order to examine the sexual culture of the working classes in New York. According to him, the term refers to a particular socio-economic arrangement that determined a set of sexual practices available to the working class from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century. Generally, this subculture included sailors and merchant seamen, transient workers, and common laborers. Most of them were young, unmarried, and often immigrant men who were unable to forge lasting family relationships as a result of various economic and social factors. As a result, they developed a form of masculinity that relied on continual performance, accomplishment, and competition. This understanding of masculinity allowed for a certain degree of tolerance toward “fairies” within the working class, as the “fairies” assumed feminine gender roles that enabled working-class men to emphasize and perform their masculinity. - Nikolai Kotkov

The Bowery of New York City came to be known as a “red-light district” in the late 19th century, particularly amongst the middle class. The Bowery was a place of openly displayed “vice,” such as how female prostitutes and male “fairies” were known to openly congregate in its streets. It was an area in which sexual interactions could be openly exchanged in public. However, the Bowery's close proximity to working class neighborhoods earned it a reputation among the increasingly privatized middle class as a symbol of the supposed degeneracy of the working class. The Bowery is an example of “spatial segregation” of “immoral” vices and institutions that not only reinforced the physical distance and separation of the middle class from such a place, but it was also used to confirm the middle class' belief that the working class was inherently more licentious. (Noah Rutkowski)

In chapter one, Chauncey lays out the nature of the sexual interractions between men in the late 19th century. These interractions are primriy between working class men. While Broadway was the place for the upper class to socialize, the Bowery held the same purpose for the working class. The nature of the social interractions of the working class men were not what the people of the time would consider “ morally pure”. Where in higher society, living quarters were more seperate and men and women fit more into their societal roles , the working class was often the opposite. this led to an enviornment where the identity of a “fairy” was able to both come about, and be interracted with by men who did not fit into this category. -Caroline Cochran

A main takeaway from this chapter os that being unable to cotnrol sexual urges is seen as a working/lower class topic while the assumption is that wealthier men are not partaking in these activities because they have the morals to be sexually constrained (and only having relations with females) even though the people who were hanging around the Bowery were completely open about the purposes of their frequency there. There seems to be a huge difference in how sex and sexual relations were understood, and who sex, and sex with men, is appropriate for. (Tea Aliu)

Another thing to point out is that Chauncey includes many examples of the fairies being more effeminate. And that men would comment on the fact that fairies would speak to their clients like “disorderly girls talk to men” so the fairies in a sense are taking on the personas of female prostitutes and men witnessing these things are using vocabulary they'd typically use when describing females that are in sex work. But with added statements like these men being perverts and their anxiety around the apparently sexually deviant. (Tea Aliu)

In chapter one, the division of how the men from different classes interacted with sexual interactions between two men or a man and a “fairy” since there was a larger demand to keep the separation of public and private life for middle to upper-class men compared to working class men. This also allowed for working class men who were taking part of the gay scene in New York with the bars and Bowery to have a more public aspect to their sex lives since there was a secretive sense of their interactions with fairies or other men. (Sage Milton)

For middle-class men, the creation of these spaces that allowed for them to “slum” with other men and have these sexual interactions it also allowed for them to remove the pressures for class and status reproduction. Their public and daily life status was not pushed upon them in these specific spaces since they were there to create or take part in their sexual fantasies that they could not recreate with their wives or women in general. (Sage Milton)

Fairies were queer men who dressed and (often) presented themselves as female, and represented the ideas of gender and sexuality of the early to mid-1900s. The ideas of the time concluded that male sexuality and identity were defined by their desire to be the penetrative party, and female sexuality worked oppositely. Fairies then, by desiring to have sex with men, acted as an inversion of conventional sexuality. This made society decide that they were not gay, but in fact were more like women (or even perhaps a third gender). This gender identity placed fairies in a relatively low place in straight society, due to their relationship with prostitution and their relinquishing of male privilege. (Tanner Gillikin)

Fairies, rather than being understood as men who were attracted to men, were understood to be somewhat of a “third sex”. The prominence of fairies in the public conception of the gay world meant that queer desire was associated with the femininity of queer men. In this understanding, it wasn't a sexual preference that made a fairy desire men, but instead that desire was a natural consequence of their feminine character. Queerness was a gender identity, not a sexuality. This association with femininity wasn't necessarily inaccurate. Many fairies understood their own desires as resulting from their feminine self, and the social expression of this femininity was a key part of fairies' participation in the gay world. They used women's names, adopted more feminine dress, and performed femininity not only to participate in a gay world that was centered around “the fairy”, but also to identify other gay men. Femininity might have been understood as the root of a fairy's desire for men, but it was also a tool that he used to identify other gay men, socialize with them, and create relationships. (Cameron Spivy)

At the end of this chapter, Chauncey argues that the “effeminacy” of the fairy subculture was specifically an attempt to mirror low-class femininity. Make-up and sexual forwardness, the markers of fairies, were also the markers of the prostitutes with which fairies shared social spaces in New York's lower-class neighborhoods. In this way, fairies consciously adopted a lower-class identifying markers, even if they lived a majority of their life in middle-class spaces. Furthermore, the adoption of prostitute-coded affectations invited in sexual encounters with, but also abuse from, lower-class men. (Nick Thodal)

Unlike how today's gender and sexual binary tends to divide a certain gender (such as men) between homosexual and heterosexual, in the late 19th and early 20th century the divide was actually between traditionally masculine men and fairies. Fairies were more so a third gender category than what we would today see as a sexuality, since the defining feature of fairies was their effeminate appearances and behaviors rather than their attraction to other men. While this homosexual desire was a factor in the identification of fairies, their gender presentation took far more precedence. Interestingly, Chauncey mentions how doctors such as William Lee Howard believed that the homosexual desire of these fairies was actually normal, since they actually were women rather than men. At the time, desire for men was a key feature of women, so these fairies were seen as inverts who were more like women than the men that they appeared to be. (Noah Rutkowski)

Chapter two brings up the idea and ballance between gender and sexual identity. For many in this time, therre was an interchangability between having sex with women and having sex with fairies. The simple act of a man having sex with other men did not inherently make him a homosexual, mainly because the idea of a homosexual hadn't existed yet. There was a distinguishing between gender and sexuality as parts of an identity. For men who had sex with fairies, sex was something that men did. This means that, for them, it didn't matter who it was with, the act of doing the penetration in a sex act was enough to maintain the social identity of a man. Fairies on the other hand were not seen as men, but they were also not seen as women either. By adopting the identity of a fairy, they surrendered all male privelege, allowing themselved to be treated as some inbetween and intermediary gender. -Caroline Cochran

During thie time, there was also a very different language that was used to describe the experience and the community. What we may think of as a common phrase in today's world for the gay comunity would be the idea of “the closet”. This phrase, however, was only created after Stonewall. Instead, what was used was the term “the gay world”. these men pictured themselves as wearing two masks or “putting their hair up”. They would inhabit two very different worlds at the same time. The gay world was framed as a pleasure and a form or secret socialization. The term “coming out” was used in a debutante way. Instead of coming out of the closet to prove or explain themselves to straight people, these men would come out into the gay world. The opinion or confirmation from straight people was irrelevant to them. -Caroline Cochran

Though absent in our modern conceptions of queer identity and relationships, sex between men in the 20s and 30s was often characterized by the participation of “normal” men. One characterization of these men, “Trade”, referred to a normal man who would have sex with fairies, often in the form of hiring fairies as prostitutes. It was their masculine gender presentation, and the masculine role that they took in sex that defined their “normal manhood”. Rather than the sex itself indicating a deficiency in heterosexuality, gender was understood as the mechanism for queer desire. They were still considered normal men if they were attracted to femininity and acted as men during sex. (Cameron Spivy)

The relationships between fairies and trade were sometimes characterized as the trade looking for a substitute for women that were situationally unavailable. However, trade would also often seek out fairies specifically, and though this preference was stigmatized, it wasn't seen as a threat to normal manhood. Cultural ideas about sex and prostitution often made fairies more desirable for men that were solely in search of sexual gratification, a mindset that was increasingly common in what Chauncey calls a “phallocentric” sexual culture. Fairies were known to give oral sex, something that most female prostitutes would not provide, and anecdotally (and inaccurately), fairies were understood to not transmit STIs in the way that women could. Additionally, fairies were often willing to perform femininity in a way that validated the masculinity of the men who had sex with them. Having sex with fairies didn't threaten the masculinity of “normal men”, it confirmed it. (Cameron Spivy)

The two largest immigrant groups to NYC during the time period of Chuancey’s study - Southern Italians and Eastern European Jews - interacted with the “gay world” in distinctly different ways. Southern Italian culture was apparently more permissive of male-male sexual relationships (seeing it as a lesser sin than premarital sex between men and women), and most Italian immigrants to the U.S. came alone, and only for a temporary period. This prompted the growth of a monogendered cultural space, within which male-male sexual activitity was more common and more tolerated than the norm. Contrast this with the experience of Jewish immigrants, who came to America in family groups and whose socia lives were generally more gender inclusive. Due in part to this, male-male sexual activity between Jewish-American men is much harder to locate in the historical record. (Nick Thodal)

Oral sex occupied a complicated position in the contemporary discourse. It was a non-reproductive sex act that was entirely centered on male pleasure, and therefore, it was viewed by many women - even by many prostitutes - as demeaning to them. However, receiving oral sex remained an attractive prospect to many men, some of whom sought out the sexual company of fairies, who were willing to perform such acts. This is especially true in the context of STIs: contemporary understandings of sexually-transmitted infections were that they could only be spread from women to man and vice versa, and that they could not be spread between the sexes. Therefore, receiving oral sex from a fairy was not only gratifying, but safer than vaginal intercourse with a prostitute. (Nick Thodal)

At the turn of the century, “trade” referred specifically to the “normal” men who were the customers of fairy prostitutes, though the term gained wider meaning to include all “normal” men who responded to homosexual advances. Interestingly, Chauncey notes that, in the middle of the century, “trade” was also used to refer to straight male prostitutes who sold sex to fairies, thus reversing the original meaning of the word. According to Alfred Kinsey's research as presented in the 1948 Sexual behavior in the Human Male, 37% of their interviewees from the 30s and 40s admitted to having had at least one sexual encounter to orgasm with another man, indicating that the “trade” position was far more common than we have been led to believe by the way that queer history is typically presented. (Noah Rutkowski)

In Chapter 4, G. Chauncey traces the emergence of hetero-homosexual binarism partially through medical discourse. He argues that this approach to the system of gender relations was not methodologically objective or unbiased, as many doctors sought to advance their own agendas, ranging from the reaffirmation of masculinity to the pursuit of cultural authority. In the first decades of the twentieth century, these doctors began to distinguish between three categories: inverts (both women and men), homosexual men, and heterosexual men. Using this framework, many physicians attempted to emphasize the relationship between inverts/fairies and homosexual men based on their sexual practices rather than gender. Overall, G. Chauncey argues that medical discourse did not create these categories, but helped to demonstrate the ideological shift in the early twentieth century. - Nikolai Kotkov

Chauncey argues that there was a shift from it being ok to have sexual desire for men as long as your gender identity was masculine (being queer) and not being respected if you had sexual desire for men if you also presented feminine (fairies) to homosexuality and heterosexuality. In order to be normal and masculine you had to only have sexual desire for women and if you sexually desired men regardless of your gender expression you were homosexual which was not respectable. This is because in order to protect their status as respectable men middle class men felt the need to differentiate themselves from working class men. So therefore working class men demonstrated their masculinity in their sexual encounters as sticking to their masculine gender roles regardless of who they sexually desired and middle class men proved their masculinity through sole sexual interest in women. (Katherine Hamilton)

Building on the different ways to express gender as gay men, Chauncey explains that often when young gay men first came out into the gay world they would identify as fairies which provided them a framework in how to express their identities as men who sexually desired other men. But after a couple years after making connections and experiencing more of living in the gay world they would shift into being queer where they presented their gender as masculine but still sexually desired other men. (Katherine Hamilton)

Those gay men who seemed to be “fairies” were sometimes looked down upon by the other gay men, who saw their effeminacy as indication of biological difference from the more “normal” gay men. Despite this, those other gay men sometimes saw it to be convenient to adopt some of those effeminate characteristics when they were in places safe to do such things, such as using feminine names and pronouns and acting in a “camp” manner. (Ezra C.)

Chauncey explains how some younger gay men would be scared to be perceived as a “fairy” when they are first getting into the gay scenes in New York, and having non-gay people being critical and discriminatory towards them if they seem like a “fairy”. This practice could also be seen with how negative other “normal” gay men would interact with the idea of being a fairy instead of just sleeping or using fairies for sexual intercourse/ favors. (Sage Milton)

GOT TO HERE –WBM

In a way, the anonymity of the city for gay men allowing same-sex relations in a way mirrors the allowance of same-sex female relations in rural and low populated areas except that city instead provided shelter from being discovered by the sheer amount of people in cities. Gay men would in order to enjoy the benefits of both being apart of the gay scene in NYC and having a straight identity would sustain separate identities at work, near his gay friends, and his children. Additionally, sociologists of the time feared that this increasing gay scene in NYC and “disorganization” would lead to the weakening of the family. (Henry Prior)

Some of the explanations doctors provided for the prevalence of homosexual subcultures in NYC (and other urban areas more broadly) were immigrants and neurasthenia. It was thought by some at the time that homosexuality was a European import (associated primarily with the French but with the European continent more broadly), and was only one of many urban vices brought to New York City by European immigrants, not all together different from alcohol or female prostitution. Others thought that homosexuality developed in men due to drain on their nervous energy caused by fast big city living - neurasthenia. (Nick Thodal)

New York was made up of a lot of young, single people who lived in certain areas which advertised housing for singles which then made it easier for them to socialize and create their underground social world as they were all in the same place. This led the older generations to fear for the morality of the new generation of Americans and for America as a whole. Similarly, a lot of immigrants moved to New York and with them came class social change which again threatened the older, richer, generations of Americans. And since many other cities also had growing immigrant populations and immigrants tended to be young and single, New York stood as an example of decreased morality and increased class conflict which threatened America as a whole. This led to the creation of various reformer groups. (Katherine Hamilton)

The reform efforts from purity groups increased especially when rural youth were taken away from their families supervision, small towns, and sent with other young, single, possibly gay, men to big cities in WWI to be subjected to urban immorality. Many once they got a taste of the freedom of the big city (New York or even big cities in Europe), permanently moved there after the war as the appeal in their small town was now gone. So prostitution, alcohol, immigrants (they brought saloon culture and progressive ideas with them), popular culture, and homosexuality in big cities, but especially New York, were all fought against with increased surveillance from police, the military, and of course the purity reformer groups.(Katherine Hamilton)

Discussing the queer social geography of New York, G. Chauncey also analyzes a rising counter-discourse in the form of various societies and committees against urban vice. In particular, the Committees of Fifteen and Fourteen were prominent organizations that attempted to fight prostitution and police the sexual life of New York. Generally, members of these societies sought to reinforce a middle-class, family-centered public order against the vices of urbanization. Interestingly, many of them appealed to medical discourse in general, and to the concept of neurasthenia in particular. According to Chauncey, early twentieth-century physicians understood sexual “inversion” as a consequence of neurasthenia, which was seen as a product of urban industrial culture. Within this framework, urbanism was viewed as a primarily negative phenomenon, as it led to the breakdown of nuclear families and fostered dangerous anonymity on the streets. For this reason, anti-vice societies attempted to combat the faults of urbanism through quasi-police powers, including economic pressure and physical violence. - Nikolai Kotkov

G. Chauncey’s analysis of the social geography of queer New York suggests that the queer world was not isolated and fully suppressed, but rather manifold and elaborate. According to him, the queer world included a variety of social spaces: streets, city parks, bars, and baths. Each of these spaces had its idiosyncratic features depending on location, class, race, and gender boundaries. These locations served as places for sexual interactions as well as for broader inclusion into the gay world, with its own system of signs and conventions. In addition, queer space included entire neighborhoods such as Greenwich Village and Harlem. These areas also had their own class and racial specificity, but overall they represented the diverse nature of queer New York. - Nikolai Kotkov

Chauncey discusses how New York became known as the “capital” of the American homosexual world, particularly for new migrants to the area. These migrants were both native-born American citizens from rural areas as well as immigrants from Europe. Most of these migrants were young, unmarried men, many of whom were able to find both work and a place in the homosexual world in the city. Gay male enclaves formed in areas like the Bowery, Greenwich Village, Times Square, and Harlem, which were attractive areas because they provided furnished housing for single men. (Noah Rutkowski)

Chauncey situates the practice of gay sex and socialization in “public” places within the broader context of working class New York. Many men lived in crowded tenements or with their families; these “private” places were not private, so they had to find privacy within the public sphere if they wanted to have sex. This was true for both straight and gay men, but the practices often took on a cultural significance for gay men as a part of their connection to the gay world. An example of this is the “tearooms” in various subway stations. The areas were certainly used for sex, but they also were a place to socialize and meet people. Parks were places for cruising, but gay men also met up in parks to hang out with other queer people. This mixed use of “public” spaces certainly mirrors that of straight people at the time, but it was used covertly to strengthen queer identity and community. (Cameron Spivy)

In New York, bathhouses acted as a pseudo-private space for men to have sex, socialize, find jobs, and drop the double life act they were forced to keep up in society. This was a space where it was expected that everybody who attended was gay, making it a safer evironment for these men. It was also a space where the buisness wouldn't raise any red flags by being exclusively gay because of the nature of exclusivity within private buisnesses before the 1960's. They were a very common place where men could enjoy the pleasure of other men, but also sometimes find themselves and learn about their sexuality in the process. Unfortunately, these public spaves went out of fasion with the introduction of indoor plumbing and, as these buisnesses went out of fasion, it made them more conspicuous to the police and to the public. -Caroline Cochran

Gay men and lesbians alike are forming a strong community in neighborhoods where they can have more freedom and visibility in harden and places like greenwich village. They made visible subcultures even though they were facing widespread discrimination from others. (Tea Aliu)

Bohemian lifestyles created an intersection of nonconformity and homosexuality where bohemian men and gay men were being labeled as queer even if that term wasn't necessarily accurate. Anything nontraditional was basically labeled or stereotyped as being homosexual and people faced tensions even in more progressive communities. (Tea Aliu)

the prohibition and tourism made the village more visible helping the community become larger and strengthen itself but it also brought in a lot of outside attention which could have possible endangered these groups. (Tea Aliu)

Analyzing various queer intellectual trends, G. Chauncey views the historiographical construction of a shared past as a major cultural strategy of gay men in New York. In particular, he emphasizes that some gay scholars attempted to demonstrate that homosexuality was not a phenomenon of cultural degradation, but rather a noble, natural, and historically traceable category. For example, the classicist scholar John Addington Symonds argued that homosexuality flourished in ancient Greece, suggesting that the discourse of homosexual “degeneracy” is, to an extent, itself a degeneration from the pinnacle of Western civilization. Another scholar, Edward Carpenter, sought to historicize homosexuality by constructing a gay genealogy that included Shakespeare, Whitman, Goethe, Byron, and many other canonical figures. Overall, these historiographical constructions appear to have served as a crucial mechanism for the formation of a distinct group identity. - Nikolai Kotkov

Chauncey discusses the concept of “chain migration,” in which gay men's migration into New York City was often facilitated by the encouragement of fellow gay friends who had already moved to the city. Men like Gene Harwood and George Sardi first moved to the city after being informed about its expansive gay world by a friend, and were able to be incorporated into that world through many different social events and gatherings such as apartment parties. Some of these young men who moved into NYC from elsewhere in the country managed to develop nearly exclusively gay circles of friends, indicating that it was very possible (though likely dangerous in many ways) for gay men in the city to operate almost entirely within the gay world. However, there were many more gay men who instead lived a double life, moving between the gay and straight worlds. (Noah Rutkowski)

Chauncey discusses how gay people in New York were able to form their own culture and community. One way they were able to do this was through using code words and double entendres. They were able to ask questions alluding to sexuality by saying something mundane like “do you have the time”, without drawing attention to their sexuality. These code words grew so much popularity that police officers started catching on and arresting people for using them. This secret language fostered a sense of besting the law, which drew this community closer to each other. -Caroline Cochran

Similar to code words, prohibition also added to this sense of besting the law. By outlawing alcohol, the government got rid of any kind of legitate night life. This, however, does not mean that night life came to and end– infact, the complete opposite. During prohibition, there was general unlawful behavior among everybody, straight and people alike. This changed the relationship between gay and straight people. Straight people were no longer seen as superior for following the law while partying. Instead, it made straight people blur the lines between the acceptance for different communities because, at the end of the day, everybody was breaking the law anyways. However, at the end of prohibition and with the creation of the liquer lisence, bar owners had to decide what to do about gay customers. Knowing that by allowing them in they could lose their lisence, they would have to decide whether to exclude them completely, or lean into the illegality of it and exclusively allow gay customers until they were caught. -Caroline Cochran

Prohibition policy counterintuitively causes a rise in the visibility of homosexuality. By delegitimizing alcohol in all forms, the prohibitionists put any form of nightlife on the same level as that of queer people. This in turn makes the queer scene more visible, sparking the so-called “pansy craze.” (Tanner Gillikin)

The Prohibition era, contrary to its goals of eliminating “vice,” actually led the gay world to gain incredible, unprecedented visibility in NYC. Chauncey explains this phenomenon as a “pansy craze” that overtook the city, earning gay men a new place in newspapers, plays, films, and other media. Because Prohibition created many economic pressures for businesses that previously relied on alcohol sales, several hotels decided to allow prostitutes and speakeasies on their grounds. Since the more “middle class” areas of NYC's nightlife had been criminalized, the majority of nightlife activities were transferred to the “coarse,” lower class forms of it, thus introducing the middle class to different forms of night entertainment. This changing social landscape, in part, is what allowed for the “pansy craze” to happen. (Noah Rutkowski)

Chauncey also connects this “pansy craze” with similar trends that brought Black performers to white neighborhoods for jazz performances framed as insights into “the plantation” and Black culture. Both of these versions of exposure were curated. Viewers didn't have to leave their nicer neighborhoods to venture to Harlem, the Village, or even Times Square. Instead they could watch this “other” and experience it as an affirmation of their own identity. Watching Black performers affirmed their own whiteness, and watching pansies affirmed their masculinity and heterosexuality. What's interesting about some of the performance of the pansies, however, is that there was direct interaction with the audience. Rather than “normal people” simply gawking from afar, as was often the case with straight attendees of drag balls, the performers, such as Jean Malin, directly interacted with the audience. Malin would flirt with and heckle the audience in performances, venturing into the crowd in order to talk to people. This ability for personal interactions differentiates this integrated nightlife from the segregated nightlife (based on sexuality) that would emerge after the end of Prohibition. (Cameron Spivy)

When authorities decided to end Prohibition, it wasn't because they stopped wanting to regulate nightlife. Rather than taking a step back from the regulation of alcohol, the end of Prohibition allowed the government, specifically state governments, to assert more control over who was allowed to sell alcohol and who was allowed to consume it in public. The creation of licenses that were needed to sell liquor meant that new regulatory bodies like the State Liquor Authority (SLA) could take away these licenses. Abiding by the policies of the SLA was necessary, because if you didn't, they could remove your ability to sell alcohol in the first place. The SLA specifically used this to prevent gay people from congregating in bars. Bars that were locations of “disorderly conduct” could have their licenses revoked, and the practice of acting gay in public was considered “disorderly” to the SLA. This created incentives for bar owners, rather than facing the wrath of the SLA, to instead preemptively police the behavior of, or actively kick out, their gay clientele. (Cameron Spivy)

Chauncey makes light of how the police would target specific individuals who are in the police's opinion “obvious” gay men, in order to take them out of the Time Square clubs that have drag shows or other pansy acts. The harassment and targeting of these specific clubs because of the “moral evil” the gay culture and events being held were amassing a more social elite attendees. (Sage Milton)