i really do believe that heterosexual historians who never did any critical gender/sex studies in their lives could never, ever understand that people WILL be gay regardless of risk. having intimate relationships with people of the same gender is an imperative to happiness for people who cannot love the opposite sex. people everywhere in history had sexual relations that would potentially ruin their lives (eg extramarital/premarital) but often we don't know about it because people don't normally leave damning evidence of their actions — they do, however, leave evidence that implies intimacy (leave evidence of their very existence) with plausible deniability.
but why when it's a gay person, all of a sudden it's unrealistic that two people could have been intimate because it would have been dangerous or like, some other bullshit excuse (Ronald "too cold in valley forge" "no time for it" Chernow, i'm looking at you).
because why is physical intimacy only extraneous, a time-waster, an unnecessary and implausible dalliance only when it's gay?
thinking about this a lot lately as I'm establishing myself more as a queer historian, and realizing through my undergrad that queer history remains under-studied because it is not taken seriously, and implications of queerness throughout history have been brushed off by historians (and whatever chernow is) who seem to have authority on a topic/person but do not make an honest effort to understand queer experiences in history, often because they simply do not SEE it.
anyway, realizing it's valid to want to focus on queer history and write about queer people during my master's is healing. also, realizing i do have authority to critique historians and other academics. not only is it a part of discourse and learning, but it is right to question traditional ways of thinking and interacting with people in history that are outdated and harmful.
