Peter Tatchell is quite old enough to remember when "homosexual" was only ever an adjective rather than a noun, and only ever applicable to acts rather than to persons.
The idea that an inclination towards such acts somehow defines an individual and collective economic, social, cultural and political identity postdates by several years our own humane and necessary decriminalisation of those acts between consenting male adults in private. That idea therefore played no part in bringing about that decriminalisation.
In fact, such a definition has very murky roots indeed, in the pederastic subcultures of urban, coastal America in the 1970s. And now, says no less a figure than Peter Tatchell, it is on the way out.
Gay identity is real, in the way that any cultural phenomenon is real. For example, class or ethnicity, both of which are very real indeed, not least as means of defining an individual and collective economic, social, cultural and political identity.
Like any cultural phenomenon, it is acquired, malleable, and ultimately transient. Don't just take my (long-published) word for that. Take Peter Tatchell's.
Like any cultural phenomenon, it is acquired, malleable, and ultimately transient. Don't just take my (long-published) word for that. Take Peter Tatchell's.
Everyone agrees with you in the end. All of your posts yesterday were hugely important. The people who deprived the parliamentary process of your voice committed a kind of treason. What happened to the bloke they preferred? He is not in Parliament or a candidate for next year but he must be nearly 40.
ReplyDeleteHe will be the last person not agreeing with this, among other things.
DeleteAnd you really are too, too kind.