Was an earlier gay rights movement in the 20th century possible?

Last month, as part of Toronto queer cultural event Nuit Rose, I attended a theatrical retelling of the story of learned of the existence of Les Mouches Fantastiques, a zine published in Montréal between 1918 and 1920 that was about as out and proud as a zine could be at that time. Daily Xtra's historian Michael Lyons wrote about the zine last year.

In the autumn of 1917, a young woman named Elsie Alice Gidlow (later known as Elsa) was living with her large family in Montreal. She made a meagre living doing office work but longed for travel and the bohemian life. She published a letter in the Montreal Daily Star under a pseudonym, asking if there were any organizations of artists or writers in the city. A second letter published under her own name appeared a couple of weeks later, suggesting that the original inquirer (herself) and others interested should meet at her apartment.

Only a few among the motley crew had any real promise. Most of the men who showed up were middle-aged and looking to pick up, given the female name signed with the second letter, and left disappointed. The only man who really stood out to Gidlow was the “most astonishing, elegant being . . . a beautiful, willowy blond” named Roswell George Mills, a financial-page editor at the Star who also wrote a pseudonymous female advice column — possibly Jessie Roberts’s What Girls May Do.

Mills was unabashedly, flamboyantly homosexual. “Roswell confided his personal crusade to me,” Gidlow wrote in her autobiography. “He wanted people to understand that it was beautiful, not evil, to love others of one’s own sex and make love with them. Roswell had divined my lesbian temperament and was happy to proselytize; the veil of self-ignorance began to lift.” Mills introduced her to the work of Oscar Wilde, Edward Carpenter, Verlaine and modern psychologists who described homosexuality in more concrete medical — rather than condemnatory moralistic — terms. She built on his reading list and began to find her own authors to venerate. He nicknamed her Sappho, and they became lifelong friends.

Early in their writing careers, Gidlow and Mills were very involved in the amateur journalist community in North America, a loose network of organizations and self-publishers. Canada was well into a bloody war, which Mills had escaped as a 4F — “physically, mentally, emotionally and morally incompetent for the glory of killing,” he said — and this, along with their sexual radicalism and their weakening tolerance for Christian patriarchy, coalesced into Les Mouches Fantastiques (originally titled Coal from Hades).

The publication consisted mostly of poetry by Gidlow about women, with translations, allegorical stories, dramatic writing and “articles on ‘the intermediate sex’” by Mills, as well as contributions that satirized society or panned the ongoing war. Gidlow assumed the publication went out to only a hundred of their fellow underground writers, but she eventually received a letter from a woman in Havana who was impressed with the work. [Graeme Davis, a] priest and writer from South Dakota read Les Mouches, fell in love with Mills and moved to Montreal in the hopes of being with him.


There is a fair bit about Elsie Gidlow, a pioneering lesbian writer who made her life and loves in the United States. The author who got her start in Les Mouches Fantastiques with her poem "To Regina" achieved some kind of fulfillment.

27660039054_7746b4a7c6.jpg


There is rather less known about Roswell George Mills. We know some of his relationships, we know that he spent part of his life in Berlin before the rise of the Nazis and that he spent most of his life in New York City as a freelance journalist, but we know little of Mills' interior life. We know surprisingly little about the man who may well be the first out gay man in Canada.

This show, Coals from Hades, brings back to life Mills and his lover Davis through an imaginary exchange of letters between the two in the early 1940s before the United States got involved in the Second World War. They remember their life together in Montréal, they talked about their very experiences as gay men--Davis the older, Mills the more cosmopolitan--and each wonders what went wrong. How did the promise of Les Mouches Fantastiques, the printed imagining of the possibility that being gay was not wrong, fail to come about? The show was a good one and the story its actors told a powerful one, one that has preoccupied me a bit over the past month. Why did it take so long for gay rights to take off as a movement? Was there any hope? Could the bravery of Les Mouches Fantastiques have seen some fulfillment earlier in the 20th century, within the lifetime of Mills?

I'd like to believe this possible, for any number of reasons. I'm just not inclined to think it was possible, simply on account of the overwhelming popularity of homophobic religion in even the most liberal countries. Even in France, where legal bans against gay sex had been dropped in 1791, homophobia was normal, and gay rights unimaginable: In Frédéric Martel's The Pink and the Black, for instance, the author's examination of the history of gay rights there notes that while gay sex as such was not criminalized, any public displays seen as threatening to public morals were prosecuted as criminal offenses. If even in liberal France there was no way to create a public discussion about sexual orientation and civil rights, what prospect was there anywhere? The relative weakness of many civil rights movements in the pre-Second World War period is also another point against this imagining.
Am I wrong?
 
If the Hays Code had never been, or rather had Joseph Breen never been put in charge of enforcing it, American social progress would be much further along than today. Hays was in the pocket of he film studios, but Breen was not, and he was a very conservative Catholic, an antisemite, and a regressive who enforced his personal views on American cinema, and therefore American media. And it was he who was responsible for the hyper sanitized, inoffensive-to-a-fly American media that existed until the mid-late 20th century. American films at the time were surprisingly mature. Women could be and often were very independent and self determined, there was occasional swearing, there was very common innuendo and bawdiness, and things were rather progressive, and story telling could be rather mature. The Hays Code was a three decade stagnation and reversal of American social progress up to that point. Without it, society progresses forward. Because of a mature attitude toward sexuality, and common media representations of strong women, I therefore argue that you could have seen earlier, strong progress on homosexuality, women's rights, racial rights, and interracial relations, along with maturity in regards to human sexuality. All of those were touched upon in Pre-Code works, and all of them were banned.
 
Last edited:
If the Hays Code had never been, or rather had Joseph Breen never been put in charge of enforcing it, American social progress would be much further along than today. Hays was in the pocket of he film studios, but Breen was not, and he was a very conservative Catholic, an antisemite, and a regressive who enforced his personal views on American cinema, and therefore American media. And it was he who was responsible for the hyper sanitized, inoffensive-to-a-fly American media that existed until the mid-late 20th century. American films at the time were surprisingly mature. Women could be and often were very independent and self determined, there was occasional swearing, there was very common innuendo and bawdiness, and things were rather progressive, and story telling could be rather mature. The Hays Code was a three decade stagnation and reversal of American social progress up to that point. Without it, society progresses forward. Because of a mature attitude toward sexuality, and common media representations of strong women, I therefore argue that you could have seen earlier, strong progress on homosexuality, women's rights, racial rights, and interracial relations, along with maturity in regards to human sexuality. All of those were touched upon in Pre-Code works, and all of them were banned.

Was that cause of these social changes, or rather consequence?

Would a no-WW2 timeline be enough?
 
Look at the 'Roaring 20s', flappers, etc., followed by the Great Depression.

LOTS of progressive things were happening at the time. Women were becoming independent, drugs more socially acceptable (in some strata, anyway), and so on. My Grandma was in Med school in the 20s, with the largest number of women in the class until the 60s.

Then the Great Depression hit. Women were turfed out of jobs in favour of 'breadwinner' men, life became a desperate scrabble, rather than a chance for fun, etc., etc.

If you could have the 20's continue (which probably involves an ASB level of understanding of the economy to implement regulations to avert the Great Depression), you might get continued growth of various civil rights. Possibly even including gays, but that's a bit tricky, or might take rather longer. (Consider the time gap between black civil rights, iOTL, and gay civil rights).
 
Germany and especially Berlin were liberalizing when it came to gay rights. Especially Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld was a trailblazer for scientifically proving that homosexuality, transsexuality and other sexual/gender issues that were seen as "abnormal" or were criminalized were simply human nature and thus "normal". There were others, often allied with Hirschfeld, but of course, the Thirs Reich killed off any and all liberalization. The negative attitude (and laws!) towards (male) homosexuality and other variants of non-heteronormative sexuality were, sadly, bequeathed to the Federal Republic of Germany which was a very repressive place to live in the fifties and early sixties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
 
Top