While examining the progress made in America within the LGBT communities, we are also faced with the reality of the great dangers associated with the first efforts to create space and different dangers to the community that still exist. From speakeasies, private apartment parties, and cruising to lesbian bars and bathhouses, the progress for lesbian spaces is undeniable. This evolution was not easy. The community constantly battled police brutality during their struggle to create their space, until the post Stonewall when their voices could finally be heard.
The Lexington Club in San Francisco closed its doors in the spring of 2015 and it was the last lesbian bar in San Francisco, a city that has been praised for years as a queer mecca. Given the city’s history, the information came to be quite shocking but after further research it became evident that lesbian bars have been closing all over the U.S, Canada, and Europe for the last several years. In my paper, I will to explore the closing of The Lexington Club and strive to answer the questions; how has gentrification played a role in affecting the depletion of the lesbian bar? And in an age where the LGBT community finally has rights and are being more socially accepted are we going backwards in spaces for lesbian and queer women?
Throughout my research I have identified several themes that I will explore in my paper; the history of lesbian bars, gentrification, and the Lexington Club as more than just a ‘bar.’ In this I will create a coherent flow of a story that will conclude in answering my research questions and what it means for the future of queer America, specifically for lesbians and queer women. Firstly, tracing the history of the lesbian space and bars will help to exemplify how instrumental they were in creating a queer subculture. Secondly, I will investigate San Francisco’s Mission District and history in relation to gentrification. Lastly, I will present my case study on The Lexington Club and why exactly it closed and what it means for the larger picture of LGBT community and studies.
The history of lesbian bars has experienced shifts nearly every decade that have imprinted its history and exemplify generational shifts and views. Prior to the 1920’s lesbian interactions were kept out of the public eye and restricted to private home parties. However, this also segregated the lesbians based on wealth, as only upper class women and prostitutes had the luxury of privacy. This was the norm until the first World War that allowed a shift, working-class women began moving into the city and with men at war more same-sex interaction (Pasulka). This period opened up the door for lesbian interaction through movement to cities, for the first time women who were unaccompanied by men would some times be served in Saloons, in thus they became some of the first lesbian bars (Pasulka). It is during these early ages of lesbian bars, that one can see how lesbians separated themselves in race and class. The prohibition was victorious for gay bars, as speakeasies went underground and made lesbian bars less noticeable into the 1930’s (Pasulka). The beginning of second world war would also have a large influence on the lesbian bar scene as economic depression put alcohol out of reach for many lesbians. Serving alcohol to gay men and women was still illegal in the 1940’s and the mafia saw this as a market to capitalize on, owning some of the first gay bars where they paid of the cops and watered down the drinks to turn profit.
Gilmartin’s research on lesbian bars during the ‘40s and ‘50s exemplifies how middle-class women rejected to identify with lesbian bars because there was negative connotation and association with the working-class lesbians. Putting an emphasize that ‘we weren’t bar people’ shows that class distinctions played a larger role than one might originally think (Gilmartin 3). Through the conduction of forty plus interviews Gilmartin found that middle-class women regardless of race had similar view on the early lesbian bar culture, describing how the working-class women made them uncomfortable as they were tough-looking (Gilmartin 5). Working-class women during the ‘40- 50s really developed the butch-fem look as they would walk the streets and not deny their sexual orientation, on the contrary middle and upper class women tended to be more discreet about it. As American’s became aware of homosexuals in the ‘50s the public sought to suppress and cure them (Pasulka). Thus middle and lower class engaged with public spaces very differently which only deepened class divisions amongst lesbians (Gilmartin18). Because of the anti-gay public opinions gay and lesbians banned together, many of the first gay bars were not same-sex, because the inclusion of both would allow both to have freedom and protection. While this technique offered protection as the sexes could mix in the case that a cop was policing the area, however it didn’t fulfill the desired need for space. The policing of the ’50s through vice laws and organized crimes provided boarders for the lesbian communities as they would cross in and out of safe places (Nestle). While the police controlled their movement and enforced fear, ‘what could not be controlled was our desire’ a very powerful line from Nestle’s “Restriction and Reclamation: Lesbian Bars and Beaches of the 1950s.” Exemplifies the strength and perseverance lesbian and queer women endured in making a place for themselves.
The bars were frequently policed well into the ‘60s, 1969 Stonewall Inn Riot in New York City would be a pivotal moment in the LGBT history, as they fought back and outnumbered the police. The pre-Stonewall lesbian experience varies very differently than the latter, as women described bars as physical and social spaces that held significance to forming themselves and undergoing a spiritual transition (Cartier, Grossman 154). Lesbian bars during this time acted as religious congregations, as many of the women had been kicked out of their religion. Where many people look to religion to find their spirituality and true self, lesbian bars acted similarly to religion, as a place of freedom and serenity (Cartier, Grossman 155). Bars are often thought of as the last place one would practice religion or any spiritual practices, this exemplifies the generational differences in how lesbians associated with bars.
Gieseking’s “Crossing Over Into Territories of the Body: Urban Territories, Borders, and Lesbian-Queer Bodies in New York City” provides great insight as to what life as a lesbian/ queer women was like during some of the most highly policed decades. Gieseking conducted forty-seven interviews of women who self-identified as lesbian and queer between 1983-2008 (Gieseking). The study looks at Greenwich Village where the Stonewall Riot took place and how it really sparked the modern LGBT movement and inspired the LGBT community around the world. Many of the participants of his study felt an attachment to Christopher Street which was commonly known as the ‘queer boulevard’ (Gieseking). However, the experience of one interview shows that despite its known acceptance of LGBT people, they were still in great danger. In ’87 the interviewee tells a story about walking down the street holding hands and kissing her girlfriend when someone punched, spat and threw water at them (Gieseking). This tells us that even in the neighborhoods known for LGBT people, no one was every fully safe. Gieseking’s study found that the Village had profound injustices and violence for lesbian and queer women especially youths, the Christopher Street Pier was a common hangout for LGBT youths of color and its redevelopment took away their hangout space (Gieseking). This specific case study shows that no matter what location, LGBT neighborhood or not, one is never fully protected. It is very telling to how the creation of lesbian bars is important, as many of these women experienced unjust policing and fragmented lives because of homophobia.
The ‘70s and ‘80s saw flourishing lesbian bars, but they were more than just a place to go and drink, they were a place to be accepted. After Stonewall a wave of activism through the 1980’s where LGBT would come together as a united front (Pasulka). The post Stonewall period led to a desire for lesbian separation from gay scene creating a subculture that allowed them to have their own space. The 1990’s was lesbian bars prime, with mixed rage, age, and class were all engaging in these spaces (Pasulka). Some bars developed that were very sexual spaces, similar to the culture that surrounds male gay bars, such as the notorious Clit Club in New York City (1990- 2002) that was pushed out of the Meatpacking District by gentrification (Dockrey). However, by 2000’s the lesbian community started to die out as more butch women began to transition into men. This caused a lot of confusion early on, as lesbians grappled with whether or not allowing trans men would change the culture of the lesbian bar scene. However, more so than ever before more people are identifying as queer than as lesbian and spaces for queer people are rising as lesbian bars are plummeting (Dockrey). The Lexington Club opened in the late 1990’s and welcomed all lesbians and transgender, it was not only inclusionary but it was a node for community connection. One that had disappeared after Maud’s closed in the late 1980’s, the Lexington Club closed its doors in 2015. Some allude the diminishing of lesbian bars to technology and online dating and apps that no longer need lesbian bars to meet people. While it has certainly offered a different approach to dating and meeting people for millennials, it is again another example of generational differences with lesbian bar scene. As millennials no longer need a spot to find themselves because the internet has created an online community for the LGBT community. Lesbian bars have had a large impact in lesbian women’s lives and the history of LGBT community, shaping the subculture and the bar itself into a spiritual and freeing space that felt like home.
The Mission District of San Francisco has had a long history with displacement, from its very founding by Spanish colonists who took over the Indian’s who already inhabited the district. The 1906 earthquake and fire devastated San Francisco and the Mission saw an influx of homeless citizens (Lee 258). Federal Housing subsidies that embody American urban renewal of the ‘50s and ‘60s saw a shift in make up, as working-class residents moved out and immigrants moved in. During the 1970’s a community of artists began to develop in the Mission as they were attracted to the cheap studio and warehouse nature it had to offer, a common pattern seen by LGBT community in other American Cities like New York City’s Chelsea and SoHo neighborhood (Lee 259). It is also important to note that the terms of these artist-lofts in both cities were not zoned for the 10% affordable housing units in a development that were required by residential redevelopments (Lee 260). The Lexington Club Lila Thirkield moved into the Mission in 1994 for its known queer community, that had been flourishing with artists, musicians and writers. However, Since Maud’s had closed in 1989 there was no full time lesbian bar which meant there was something missing from the queer community. After finding the perfect corner lot at a steal rental price Thirkield filled the void opening The Lexington on January 31st 1997.
However, by the 1990’s San Francisco was already beginning to see an influx of the dot-com settlers as the region would become largely known for its tech industry. This opened the door for new tech employment, but dually shut out existing residents – between 1990 and 2000 one housing unit for every 3.14 jobs was created, approximately half a million jobs were created as a result of the boom (Lee 259). The tech industry would continue to make housing and retail conditions worse, one of the main streets in the Mission District, Valencia Street, had jumped a rent increase of 42% in two years, from 1990-1998 50% of the businesses had closed (Lee 260).
Lesbians are more greatly impacted by the gender income gap than anyone else, the rising real estate prices would greatly challenge the Mission Districts queer community As the artists began to be pushed out by gentrifications developers began to develop artist-lofts and market them to the new techy home buyers, this same strategy was seen in SoHo and Chelsea (Lee 260), As the owner of the Clit Club had explained that the Meatpacking District saw a revitalization of its post-industrial manufactures that were converted into loft-living and rose the real estate prices. Several years ago the rent of The Lexington Club was raised to market rate which was a difficult adjustment with the Lexington’s never a cover business model. The Never a cover business model was for the purpose of accessibility through affordability, it had no cover and cheap drinks which welcomed everyone and prevented any border from getting in. Especially when that business model that only caters to 5% of the population has often made lesbian bars economically unstable especially when LGBT communities are being forced out. The economics and demographics of the Mission District have and continue to change rapidly, Thirkield explains that the rising rent not only forced The Lexington Club to close but also most of the lesbian community. Mission now having a median 1-bedroom rent of $3,410 as of February 2015 (Tabak). The real estate prices are rising in retail and residential and it is gentrifying entire cities, and minorities like the LGBT communities are being hit the hardest.
San Francisco is not the only city that is guilty of gentrifying flourishing LGBT communities. However, San Francisco has long been known as the gay capital of America, New York City has also been known for its LGBT history with the Stonewall landmark. However, these two cities are notorious for high rents and the greatest amount of gentrification. Looking a bit deeper into the history and geography of these cities might help to understand the gentrification that is occurring. San Francisco faces great difficulty in expansion because of its location, geographic location surrounded by coastlines and mountains that make the city appealing also create boundaries (Florida). New York and San Francisco are two of the oldest cities in America and were built up rapidly which contributed to the empires they have created today. However, today as urbanization and demographic growth increases the geographic constraints have resulted in higher housing prices. This contributes to conceptualizing how real estate prices have been able to skyrocket in the last couple of decades, thus looking and gender income gap gives more insight about why lesbian bars are closing.
Gieseking preludes the closing of lesbian bars in the U.S, Canada, and Europe to gentrification. The findings are that since the 1990’s many lesbian bars have closed because of the larger gentrification that effects the lesbian’s most greatly because of gender income gap. As we’ve learned throughout the semester people moving into a neighborhood because of the ‘artistic’ or ‘creative’ class, is decoded as gay male neighborhoods. Gay men benefit the most from the gender income gap and the capital power has given them the ability to reinvigorate neighborhoods in historically blighted urban areas. In the earlier year’s lesbians and queer women often shared communities with gay men, but today lesbians have been pushed out by gentrification. Today, most New York City neighborhoods that were famous for their gay populations, Chelsea and SoHo as I mentioned earlier, today have some of the highest real estate prices in the city and the feel of the loft- lifestyle has become very desirable. So the reason why gay bars are going strong and lesbian bars are failing, is due largely to the fact that gay men have the capital means to stay in the city, where lesbians have been pushed out through gentrification.
Hammers’ study of Pussy Palace in Toronto also speaks to the disparity between gay and lesbian bars. The Pussy Palace is an event held several times a year by Toronto Women’s Bathhouse Committee (TWBC) at the gay men’s bathhouse Club Toronto, while the club is kind enough to allow the TWBC to host these events it still shows the gap in such queer spaces. Hammers’ interviewee’s all provided similar feelings about the Pussy Palace, that it provided them with a place of acceptance and opportunity where they could freely sexually express themselves from the dangers of the homophobic outsiders. Many lesbian and queer women have found a deeper connection to bars, not only were they pivotal in community organization but also evoked feelings of home. While stereotypes like the ‘U-Haul Theory’ is commonly used to explain why lesbian bars are closing, that is, the theory that lesbians are more likely to couple quickly because they are not able to separate sex and love the way that gay men can (JD Sampson). While lesbians admit that the early bar years were just as much about forming a community as they were hooking up, lesbian bars are not closing because of the ‘U-Haul Theory,’ as they were and are so much more than just a physical representation of a bar.
Since 1985 San Francisco went from having eight lesbian bars to one, The Lexington Club in 2015. The Lex opened its doors in 1997 and was the only lesbian bar opened 7 days a week and on every holiday. This along with ‘never a cover’ business structure allowed accessibility for the LGBT community always. Being open on the holidays really exemplifies how the Lexington provided lesbian and queer women with a home, as many LGBT people are not accepted by their families, they didn’t have to be alone on the holidays. Instead The Lex welcomed these individuals with open arms as the queer community always had a home and support system at The Lex. The Documentary Last Call at Maud’s: The End of An Era provides great insight in its many interviews of patrons who expressed that they felt at home because it was freeing experience in which you could finally be yourself without judgment. That is why the opening of The Lexington was so important for the community it brought back a judgment free zone where the LGBT culture grow and flourish. On the first night the bar tender recalls the line being rapped around the block because lesbians were ecstatic to have a place of their own again. Salamon’s Last Look at The Lex looks at the physical space in the bar and the use of varying atmospheric spaces and the manifestation of gender identity and sexuality that created the real magic of the bar. When describing the atmosphere of the famous bathroom that is a hallmark of the bar, “Messages, proclamations, outbursts, expressions of devotion, lust, anger, joy, love” (Salamon). Each patron was able to shape the Lex, freedom of expression was not just in the designated space, it was all over the walls. The bar was just as much shaped by its people, as the community was shaped by it. Thirkield allowed people to cover the walls in art or flyers for events, even if it were another lesbian bar that had potential of taking away patrons, that wasn’t the way that Thirkei;ld looked at it. She saw it as a way for everyone to play a role in shaping the community, she wasn’t scared of it taking away business because she felt that having more spaces was more important (Kost).
The co-existence of lesbians and trans community was not previously embraced and having both really amplified the acceptance in the overall neighborhood. The strong emotions people felt with The Lex is amplified in the forty plus interviews conducted by Tabak and Smith to create “Never A Cover” a 10-minute documentary, part of there bigger Lexington Club Archival Project. Tabak and Smith were friends and both had reached out to Thirkield when they had learned about the closing, they both wanted to tell her story, so they collaborated and the Lexington Club Archival Project was born. Tabak immediately had a desire to preserve the history of the Lexington Club as the readings of Michelle Tea’s Valencia inspired her to come to the queer mecca Mission District, recalling, “drugged and directionless, I dreamed about dyke life in San Francisco” (Tabak). Tabak expresses the shock that she felt when she heard that the Lex was closing, while she knew that the demographics of the Mission were changing she always thought that the Lex would be her safe place. As when she came out in 2000 “The Lexington Club was a beacon of hope – a lighthouse in a gay mecca” (Tabak). The way that Tabak symbolizes the Lex as a lighthouse really resonates with the hope that it gave the queer community. The imagery of someone who has felt lost at sea unable to be ones’ true self because of a homophobic and scrutinizing world that surrounds them, the imagine of a lighthouse in the distance gives one hope in the rough sea, but reaching that light house makes one safe. Tabak is very powerful in the way that she talks about how crucial the Lexington was to her life and to all of the queer community in the Mission, an area that still had to deal with homophobia.
The Announcement of the Lex closing lead to an uproar in the community, months prior to its closing would not be one of quiet weeping it was one that marched, protested and made a lot of noise to memorialize the space that they had lost (Tabak). This may not have prevented the bar from closing but the noise resonated with how important this space was to people. As does the Archival Project, with a great number of interviews that show how meaningful the Lexington was, everyone described the many fond memories that they treasure. Similarly, New Orleans started a “Last Call Dynamic Dyke Bar Scene of 1970’s/60’s Archive,” New Orleans is another example of a city that has no lesbian bars left going from seven to zero. Known as the party capital o the U.S it is shocking that the city doesn’t have a place for dykes to boogie, however Samson found that people admitted the City was a bit more backwards than the rest of the country. However, despite the fact that there are no bars left the fact that people have started archival projects to keep the bars alive and tell their stories, shows how important they were to the lesbian and queer community (Samson). One women older woman that Samson interviewed said, “As we age its not just losing a place to dance, its losing a community, everyone deserves a place to go and be with other people like them” (Samson). I think that this quote is very telling as it exemplifies that lesbian bars were never about just hooking up or having a place to dance, it was a formation of a subculture, a community, a home.
The internet has in many ways changed personal interactions and methods of dating, the countless amount of commercials for every possible subcategory to ‘meet your match’ as well as apps, opened the door for a new type of engagement. Some believe that this has contributed to the depletion of the lesbian bar scene, because everything is online there is less to no need for a lesbian bar, it has become ‘outdated.’ I beg to differ, while the internet has created an online community for LGBT people to connect it does not mean that there is no longer a need for the lesbian bar. The tangible has such an important impact on our lives, as one can see in the way that people talk about the Lexington Club’s bathroom… a bathroom. I believe that everyone needs a tangible and physical space to interact as human contact is very important to human beings. When you are physically in a place you are able to shape it, feel it, interpret it, and make what you want of it. I don’t believe that the internet evokes the same feeling that one gets from a physical space. Especially in the spaces described by these lesbian and queer women, who had a fire burning and they would burn the town before letting the spit and water of homophobic outsiders stop them.
Through the themes; the lesbian bar history, gentrification, and The Lexington Club as more than a bar several connections between literature have become very evident. Firstly, the history of lesbian bars shows the truly inspiration journey of individuals who endured a great deal of pain, but never gave up. It also shows that there was frequently a divide amongst lesbians in terms of class and race, especially in the earliest ages of lesbian bars where they were frowned upon. Then to the evolution of the lesbian bar into the sexually free spirit of the Clit Club that showed lesbians could have a similar culture to that of male gays and proved the ‘U-Haul Theory’ wrong. Through the lens of gentrification, it is evident that it isn’t the first time the Mission District saw gentrifiers that completely changed the make up of the city, it has frequently happened over different periods of booms and busts. However, it is obvious that the income gap between men and women has been the greatest displacement of lesbian women. In the early ages gay men and women needed each other for protection and they shared community space, today, gay men and their creativity has transformed landscapes. As seen in the loft-lifestyle of living that was repackaged and sold to the new generation of urban dwellers. Lastly, The Lexington Club as well as other lesbian bars and spaces in the U.S and Toronto exemplify how important the physical space was to forming ones’ identity, and creating the larger lesbian and queer community and culture. The never a cover, always open door motto of The Lexington Club made it a home, everyone was allowed and encouraged to put their mark and make it their own.
Tracing the history of lesbian bars and their closing has resonated with how important spaces are to our lives. Especially in a world where one faces great danger and harassment in being who they truly are. Lesbian and Queer women have endured a long road to create their own subculture and their own space, which allowed them to be free and more importantly themselves. The story of the Lexington Club is very important to the history of lesbian bars, as it exemplifies the creation of a community. The way that a physical space can evoke a feeling of home and sometimes inexpressible feelings of a deep connection to a space, it emphasizes how important the tangible is. Gentrification has played a direct role in the depletion of the lesbian bar, more specifically the gender income gap. The inequalities in American society are greater than ever before, lesbian women are impacted most greatly from the income gap. As we’ve seen the result has lead to a loss of a neighborhood, a bar, a community. No one deserves to lose that, especially for a minority that has fought so much for its space. A space that is more than just a bar to throw back a couple of beers, it was a home, a safe haven, a community in of itself. The closing of The Lexington Club the last lesbian bar in the queer capital of the country should sound alarms, it did in my head. Lesbian bar means more to lesbian and queer community than any bar does to a straight person. In an age where we are moving forward in acceptance of LGBT persons, the closing of bars across America seemed backwards. However, it is clear that the nation wide gentrification that is occurring is plaguing the lesbian and queer communities. I do believe that there is hope moving forward, as LGBT youths may feel the internet is an outlet for acceptance I do believe that as they grow they will fight for their spaces just as lesbians have throughout history.
Cartier, Marie, and Brian R. Grossman. “‘Oh My God, I’m Home’: The Socioreligious Significance of Gay Older Women’s Experiences of Women’s Bars Before Stonewall.” Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging 25, no. 2 (April 1, 2013): 139–59. doi:10.1080/15528030.2012.739991.
Crystal Chen. “Mapping San Francisco’s Rent Prices (March 2016).” The Zumper Blog, March 22, 2016. https://www.zumper.com/blog/2016/03/mapping-san-franciscos-rent-prices-march-2016/.
Florida, Richard. “Blame Geography for High Housing Prices?” CityLab. Accessed May 10, 2016. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/04/blame-geography-for-high-housing-prices/478680/.
Gieseking, Jen Jack. “Crossing over into Neighbourhoods of the Body: Urban Territories, Borders and Lesbian-Queer Bodies in New York City.” Area, February 1, 2015, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/area.12147.
Gilmartin, Katie. “‘We Weren’t Bar People’: Middle-Class Lesbian Identities and Cultural Spaces.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 3, no. 1 (January 1, 1996): 1–51. doi:10.1215/10642684-3-1-1.
Hammers, Corie. “Space, Agency, and the Transfiguring of Lesbian/Queer Desire.” Journal of Homosexuality 56, no. 6 (July 31, 2009): 757–85. doi:10.1080/00918360903054269.
Hirsch, Daniel. “Goodbye Lexington! Long Live the Lexington!” MissionLocal. Accessed April 29, 2016. http://missionlocal.org/2015/04/goodbye-lexington-long-live-the-lexington/.
JD Samson. “Broadly Goes to ‘The Last Lesbian Bars.’” AfterEllen, August 17, 2015. http://www.afterellen.com/people/448465-broadly-goes-last-lesbian-bars.
Jen Jack Gieseking. “On the Closing of the Last Lesbian Bar in San Francisco: What the Demise of the Lex Tells Us About Gentrification.” The Huffington Post, February 2, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jen-jack-gieseking/on-the-closing-of-the-las_b_6057122.html.
Lauren Morrell Tabak. “Sending Off The Last Lesbian Bar In San Francisco.” BuzzFeed, July 29, 2015. http://www.buzzfeed.com/LaurenMorrellTabak/the-last-lesbian-bar-in-san-francisco.
Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. Gentrification. 1 edition. Routledge, 2007.
“New York’s Lesbian Bars Are Disappearing: Here’s Why Their Survival Matters.” Brooklyn Based, April 10, 2015. http://brooklynbased.com/blog/2015/04/10/new-yorks-lesbian-bars-disappearing-survival-matters/.
Pasulka, Nicole. “The History of Lesbian Bars.” Broadly. Accessed May 10, 2016. https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/the-history-of-lesbian-bars.
Patrick, Darren J. “The Matter of Displacement: A Queer Urban Ecology of New York City’s High Line.” Social & Cultural Geography 15, no. 8 (November 17, 2014): 920–41. doi:10.1080/14649365.2013.851263.
Podmore, Julie. “(Re)Reading the ‘Loft Living’Habitus in Montréal’s Inner City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22, no. 2 (June 1, 1998): 283–302. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00140.
Redmond, Tim. “Why SF’s Iconic Dyke Bar, the Lexington Club, Is Closing.” 48 Hills, October 23, 2014. http://www.48hills.org/2014/10/23/lexington-club-closing-owner-says-higher-rent-gentrification-gender-inequality-hurt-iconic-lesbian-bar/.
Retter, Yolanda, Anne-Marie Bouthillette, Gordon Brent Ingram, and Joan Nesle, eds. “Restriction and Reclamation: Lesbian Bars and Beaches of the 1950’s.” In Queers in Space: Communities, Public Places, Sites of Resistance, First Edition edition. Seattle, Wash: Bay Press, 1997.
Ryan Kost. “Last Call for City’s Last Lesbian Bar – SFGate,” April 18, 2015. http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Last-call-for-city-s-last-lesbian-bar-6209121.php.
Salamon, Gayle. “Last Look at the Lex.” Studies in Gender and Sexuality 16, no. 2 (April 3, 2015): 147–48. doi:10.1080/15240657.2015.1038203.
Stuart McDonald. “Where Did All The Girls Go- The Disappearing Lesbian Bar in the U.S.” PRIDE, November 16, 2015. http://www.pride.com/need-know/2015/05/07/where-did-all-girls-go-disappearing-lesbian-bar-us.
Trish Bendix. “‘Never a Cover’: The Lexington Club Archival Project Celebrates the History of San Francisco’s Last Lesbian Bar – AfterEllen,” April 24, 2015. http://www.afterellen.com/people/428115-never-cover-lexington-club-archival-project-celebrates-history-san-franciscoss-last-lesbian-bar.