In 1982, Randy Shilts published his biography of Harvey Milk, entitled "The Mayor of Castro Street".
For those who don't know, Harvey Milk was the first open homosexual to be voted into public office in the state of California.
He was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
The biography contains a fair bit of background, not just about Harvey Milk, but about San Francisco's gay community more generally.
In its early years, San Francisco attracted large waves of mainly male migrants motivated by the promise of gold in California.
Boys will be boys, and out of necessity and selectivity, these early migrants tended to be a bit more accepting of homosexuality than the people back east.
The gays among them enjoyed more license, attracting more gays, many of whom abided by the handkerchief code.
As San Francisco grew from a backwater to a bustling city of some 50,000, its licentious attitudes led to gays migrating there just to be around more gays.
This reputation was so renowned that even Oscar Wilde talked about it:
The Spanish-American War saw thousands of young men come to call the city home, and many of these young men learned that they could make extra money escorting older men.
But the bustling gay scene wouldn't last.
In 1906, the earthquake destroyed 80% of the city, including most of the underground gay establishments.
It also attracted church leaders who ran clean-up campaigns that were followed by even more extreme efforts during Prohibition.
The campaigns against gay establishments and establishments that accepted them due to their 'looser morals' were coupled with private efforts to blackmail gay men.
Some navy men would dress up in their tightest uniforms and stake out Market Street, hoping to find gays to extort.
If that weren't enough, the "Lilly Laws" enforced by the police made things much worse.
One method the police used to detect homosexuals was to set up their best-looking men in the Market Street theater, a popular cruising spot.
And, well, just read this:
The gays who got away with living their lives were the lucky ones. Gay living in the city had been effectively snuffed out prior to World War II even though it had such a fruitful beginning.
But notice that I said prior to World War II.
Starting in 1916, the U.S. military started dismissing soldiers who were found to be homosexual.
Gay soldiers, officers, and navy men alike were given blue discharges (aka blue tickets) signifying that they were dishonorably discharged and everyone was to know it.
From the point of discharge, these men had the letter "H" stamped on all of their documents.
And I mean all their documents: if they went to the doctor, the bank, or any potential employers, everyone would know that these men were homosexuals.
World War II was the largest mass conscription event in American history, and it was the first time the military actively sought to purge its ranks of homosexuals.
Because San Francisco was the main Pacific theatre point of debarkation, it's also where these men were dismissed.
Tens of thousands of men from across the U.S. were discharged from the Pacific theatre and they suddenly found themselves taking up residence in San Francisco.
Because of the damage from the big letter "H" on all their documents, it wasn't feasible for most of them to leave.
The result was a community that had no choice but to get on, openly.
If everyone knew you were gay due to the big blue letter branded on everything about you, why act like you're anything else?
So America's largest gay community was born.
This meant gays didn't hide (as often) anymore in San Francisco. This fact also attracted people who didn't want to hide to the city.
What's more, the military labeling gays as gays gave rise to the first truly modern gay bars in America.
After all, why care about getting caught when you've already been found out?
These discharges were a major injustice and their scale remains unknown because the military hasn't owned up to it.
But they are how San Francisco became incredibly gay.
If you want to know more, the book is widely available online. Go give it a read!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This research directly militates against modern blood libel.
If people knew, for example, that Black and White men earned the same amounts on average at the same IQs, they would likely be a lot less convinced by basically-false discrimination narratives blaming Whites.
Add in that the intelligence differences cannot be explained by discrimination—because there *is* measurement invariance—and these sorts of findings are incredibly damning for discrimination-based narratives of racial inequality.
So, said findings must be condemned, proscribed.
The above chart is from the NLSY '79, but it replicates in plenty of other datasets, because it is broadly true.
For example, here are three independent replications:
A lot of the major pieces of civil rights legislation were passed by White elites who were upset at the violence generated by the Great Migration and the riots.
Because of his association with this violence, most people at the time came to dislike MLK.
It's only *after* his death, and with his public beatification that he's come to enjoy a good reputation.
This comic from 1967 is a much better summation of how the public viewed him than what people are generally taught today.
And yes, he was viewed better by Blacks than by Whites.
But remember, at the time, Whites were almost nine-tenths of the population.
Near his death, Whites were maybe one-quarter favorable to MLK, and most of that favorability was weak.
The researcher who put together these numbers was investigated and almost charged with a crime for bringing these numbers to light when she hadn't received permission.
Greater Male Variability rarely makes for an adequate explanation of sex differences in performance.
One exception may be the number of papers published by academics.
If you remove the top 7.5% of men, there's no longer a gap!
The disciplines covered here were ones with relatively equal sex ratios: Education, Nursing & Caring Science, Psychology, Public Health, Sociology, and Social Work.
Because these are stats on professors, this means that if there's greater male variability, it's mostly right-tail
Despite this, the very highest-performing women actually outperformed the very highest-performing men on average, albeit slightly.
The percentiles in this image are for the combined group, so these findings coexist for composition reasons.