I've been hearing that we're not supposed to use labels like "gay" and "trans" to describe historical figures. But like, they were homosexual or transgendered. Why is that verboten?
This is actually a pretty controversial part of researching queer history, so I am going to try and give a thorough answer! There is a vocal portion of people who study history who believe that using modern labels to describe historical figures does harm to the study of history. I've heard both sides of the argument pretty thoroughly so I'll try and sum up my understandings on them, while also sharing my personal viewpoint.
Okay on the side of not using modern terms I find the more academic side of the argument. The thing is, the labels as we understand them now have fluctuated intensely and will likely continue to do so. So it means it's a different thing to call someone trans fifty years ago versus now. There was a time that the popular (and academic) understanding of transgender excluded anyone with same gender attraction. So people like Lou Sullivan were excluded from medical treatment because they were gay and trans. This is to say that without a fixed definition of labels it is hard to pin a historical figure down with certainty and doing so runs the risk of erasing or diminishing any evidence that doesn't suit the label.
It is also worth discussing that words like "queer" imply difference and when applied to cultures where same-gender attraction and gender nonconformity are normal, it can flatten the unique realities between cultures. Like, just because in some European cultures "queerness" was an oddity, does not mean that is a universal truth. There are many cultures and eras where what we understand now as "queerness" wouldn't be different or unexpected to any degree. On that note, applying the term queerness to cultures where the gender binary didn't exist runs the risk of flattening the discussions and participating in a neo-colonial line of thought.
All of this being said, I personally think that these arguments have merit, but don't convince me. First I have to speak to my personal experience which is to say the more discourse there is around a type of identity the more this argument is trotted out. It is not applied universally by any stretch of the imagination.
You will absolutely see people call a historical figure gay, but then start arguments over using they/them pronouns, asexual, aromantic, and two-spirit identities. I also believe in a debunking argument that says that if we are willing to use the word "feminist" to describe people before the more modern birth of the feminist movement, then queer terms are also allowed.
That being said, I absolutely respect the academic perspective of not using ANY of these terms and exploring history without labels like these at all and maybe finding more nuance through that method. The thing is I don't think just because it makes sense in one type of discussion, it should be applied to EVERY type of conversation. There is frankly an obvious difference between an academic book or paper versus a project like ours that is framed around accessibility.
I also find the people who fight against using these terms often have a very fixed version of history in their minds. There is one way of looking at the past and that is the CORRECT way, which in my opinion is a thought stopping behaviour. I think bringing queer terms into historical discussions reflects something very important about the study of history, fluidity.
Any study of history that relies on one truth, one perspective, and perfection, doesn't interest me. I think what makes history so valuable as an object of study is that we are always learning more and are always expanding our understandings.
I have gotten some backlash for using they/them pronouns for historical figures that did not use these pronouns during their life. But I am not married to the idea that if they were alive today they would use these pronouns. The conversation I am instead having is that when we aren't sure using they/them is a good default. Instead of it being a theory about one persons personal identity, it is instead a reminder that in this moment we are sitting in uncertainty and that's okay. I love when I see people use she/her pronouns for Claude Cahun, or King Kristina, I think they are making a valid choice. My use of they/them is often to remind people that it is a choice that they are making.
Regardless, I think there is space in the discussion for multiple points of view and as long as someone doesn't harass me over my stance (which has happened) I love hearing and learning different ways people study history. We all bring our own baggage and understandings when it comes to the study of history and I am much more intrigued by exploring that rather than muting it.
