In many ways, this book was illuminating on just how much a part of US history LGBTQIA individuals are. But, if I'm being truthful, it's much more interested in white, cis-gendered, gay and lesbian individuals, which might be because of information actually available for individuals in US history, but still, it was disappointing. I'm not sure if it was out of an abundance of caution, or an actual oversight, but it felt very much like bisexual was a floor made of lava that this book attempted to avoid. There would be individuals described as 'homosexuals who also had opposite sex liaisons' (paraphrasing). I'm pretty sure bisexual was used exclusively after 'Gay, Lesbian,..'.
It was much the same with Trans and gender non-conforming individuals. There were a few individuals whose gender identities were explored, but generally strictly along a male/female binary and with some sort of disorienting pronoun usage (which may, again, be the author erring on the side of caution).
It felt very much like listening to a well-educated GLBT activism veteran about the history of the movement and their precursors. Well worth paying attention to, but a bit dated, with some blind-spots, and a weak (but still present!) grasp on intersectionality.
But, in consideration of how much of this falls into the general blind-spot of most US history, it's still worth the read. ( )

I read all but one of two of the first chapters of this book, for research for a gay historical fiction novel and ... some of it was really good, some of it was mediocre, but I found it had a lot of contradictions.

This is a very general history of gay culture in the United States, and with its broad brushstrokes, sometimes it wins, sometimes it loses.

I took lots of notes and found many enjoyable details (the chapter on the production and marketing of gender was an unexpected joy) I found lots of bisexual / asexual and trans erasure present not only in the historical text but in the text itself.

I liked that it often challenged and called out racist ideals of the time, as well as well-known historical figures who were racist, but I was just disappointed at times in the overall tone of this book, upon reflection.

This feels very white-centered and very along the gay/lesbian binary, as well as the male/female binary.

I'm pleased with the notes I made, but I just found this to be well-intentioned and equally harmful. At one point, Bronski conflates the queer struggle with the struggle for equality amongst African Americans in the United States. He makes one or two interesting points I suppose, but to conflate and compare struggles is harmful and has already been done a thousand times over. He then goes on to elaborate that we shouldn't compare struggles, but like lots of white male cis writers, lacks the subtlety to break down the intersectionality of blackness and queerness in any meaningful way.

He then makes a smart move and quotes Audre Lorde, and then leaves the quotation unattended. The more I think about this, the more it sours in my mouth, which is sad because it was an enjoyable read, but I often wanted Bronski to check his privilege and drop his pejorative views.

Oh well. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ ( )

Spanning European colonization to 1990 and clocking in at only 240 pages, this really just a gloss. It does it what it is supposed to but considering it took months and months to finish it wasn’t exactly setting off flash bulbs in my mind. Stonewall gets about five sentences, but there is whole chapter on how World War II set the pieces in place for the social upheavals of the 1960s. ( )