A few days ago a writer under the pseudonym Scott Alexander published a weblog post that begins with “I don’t know much about gay history, but the heavily mythicized version of it I heard goes like this:” What is this? Let’s examine it with a commitment to truth, not “myth.”

At first open homosexuality was totally taboo. A few groups of respectable people with hilariously upper-class names like The Mattachine Society and The Daughters Of Bilitis quietly tried to influence elites in favor of more tolerance, using whatever backchannels elites use to influence one another. They had limited success, but they comforted themselves that at least they were presenting a likeable and respectable face for homosexuality that was improving the lifestyle’s public reputation.

The Mattachine society was formed in the immediate post-World War II environs of LA, as a secret group of queer men. One of the core founders, Henry Hay, had been inspired by native American spirituality and communist solidarity to form a group to help other queer men escape “isolation from their own kind.” Hay believed that there was a suppressed “homosexual minority,” and that queer relationships had been socially acceptable in pre-modern societies. In 1950, Hay and a cohort organized the Mattachine in “a cell-like structure that would guarantee its members anonymity,” and gatherings for social solidarity. It was primarily about bringing queer men together, secondarily about educating each other and heterosexuals, and thirdly about providing leadership out of oppression for “the whole mass of social deviates” (White 2009:18). In 1852–53, Mattachine society played a role in the creation of the first gay rights magazine. At it’s inception it had a progressive charter—the “board” of the magazine had a mandate for racial diversity and three women were included as “trustees” of the magazine (White 2009:34).

The secret of the Mattachine society was broken nationally in the spring of 1952. A society member, Dale Jennings had been entrapped by a police officer in MacArthur Park, LA. Henry Hey jumped at the opportunity to fight against the oppression of gay men, and so paid Jenning’s bail and convinced a defense attorney to take the case. The society promoted the trial as a perversion of justice and liberty, declaring homosexuals have become aware “of themselves as a social Minority with the group culture characteristics (patterns, problems, and oppressions) that are common to all Minorities similarly persecuted by baseless myth and vulgar prejudices” (as quoted in White 2009:25). During the trial, the police officer had been caught in a lie, and the jury had been locked 11-to-one favoring acquittal. The judge dismissed the charges and Jennings was allowed to walk free.

The Daughters of Bilitis was formed in the 1950s (as the wikipedia article indicates) in response to social isolation lesbians were feeling and police crackdowns on bars. The Daughters had been somewhat involved with the Mattachine society and One Magazine, but as a founding member of the Daughters explained in 1959:

What do you men know about lesbians? In all of your programs and your Mattachine Review you speak of the male homosexual and follow this with—oh yes, and incidentally there are some female homosexuals, too… ONE Magazine has done little better. For years they have relegated the lesbian interest to the column called “Feminine Viewpoint.” So it would appear to me that quite obviously neither organization has recognized the fact that lesbians are women and that this twentieth century is the era of emancipation of women… (Del Martin, as quoted in Bullough 2008:164)

It had been in 1955, Del Martin and her partner Phyllis Lyon had moved in together and wanted to meet other lesbians. They helped form the Daughters of Bilitis and was one of the first organization for lesbian activism in country.

Now, let us take a step back and evaluate truth of the statements Scott “Alexander” makes. Were these few groups composed of “respectable people”? Hays was a bit of an eccentric and Jennings (who established ONE) was a park cruiser. Were these people part of the “elite”? Del was a reporter for a daily in San Francisco and Phyllis was a waitress before joining the Daughters. Many of the members of the Mattachine society were young men who’d served in the war. These people were not back channeling elites. Did they “comforted themselves that at least they were presenting a likeable and respectable face for homosexuality that was improving the lifestyle’s public reputation”? FUCK. NO. Jennings admitted in court that he was a homosexual, and the Mattachine fought back against the dominant culture of homophobic violence directed at queer people.

Now we are left to consider what’s next? Do we take on the idea that it was “few totally-non-respectable outsiders with nothing to lose – addicts, drag queens, men with lots of chest hair” who, in opposition to the queer elites, “respectability cascaded” through history? What would even be the point? To tackle such a question would be to do more work that Scott with zero the cushy ad revenue from rationalist Manhattan psychologists and FOOD SQUARES.

But here’s my confusion: what is this “myth” that Scott is promulgating? Where does it come from? What is the underlying connections to the rest of the piece. It’s can’t be a coincidence that Alexander Jones’ cited rant was about chemicals turning people gay. Why is myth of gay elites so weirdly similar to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (or worse—the racist-as-fuck homosexual history written by the neo-Nazi James O’Meara)?

One final thing I’d like to call attention to, something I think worth meditating on about rationalists armchair culture and the politics of reactionary centrism: where is human agency in these theories of social change? Scott’s “respectability cascade” has one group of agents (scheming queers) and then the 0% respectables. What happens? With nothing to lose, strung out on drugs, in drag, and hairy, they just naturally expose themselves as sexual deviants. Then respectability “cascades.” Jonathan Haidt has us all programmed to be either southern bigots or corruptible coastal liberals. Steven Pinker is the pope of quietism. These people don’t believe in people. These people are misanthropes. And if these people were committed to the truth, they’d admit this.

EDIT: I’m shamed to admit that I have been banned for truth from /r/SSC