The Importance of Studying Queerness in Context.
When studying queer history, one always has to keep in mind two seemingly contradictory things: firstly, that queerness and queer people have always existed, but at the same time, that queerness and queer identities have not always existed the way they exist today.
Modern queer terms and identities did not exist to queer people in the past. They would not have thought of themselves as "gay" or "trans" or even "queer." While these modern terms may seem to fit certain historic individuals, these individuals would not have thought of themselves as such, and it would not be a part of their lived experience. To apply the modern identities of queerness to history is to erase the lives and experiences of queer people in history, and care must always be taken to understand queer history within the context of its time.
When looking at queer history online, there is a *lot* of misinformation and misidentification out there simply because people are eager to apply modern queerness to history, often in places where it doesn't belong.
A lot of old photos get misidentified as gay because they show two people of the same sex showing some level of physical affection towards each other. Okay, I'll admit that the open-mouth kissing photobooth pictures are probably actually gay, but an old picture of two men or two women holding hands or with their arms around each other, or even kissing on the cheek, were common shows of platonic affection.
I hate to break everyone's gay little hearts, but without explicit documentation saying so, assuming that these couples are all gay is putting modern queer identity in places where it simply didn't exist. The women in the final picture are sisters. The "not married" boys are bachelors interested in marrying women.
In the silent film Wings, the emotional climax of the film comes in the form of a kiss exchanged between the characters played by Jack Powell and David Armstrong. It often gets attributed as the first gay kiss in cinema history, even on the fucking YouTube clip I found:
Except it isn't gay. The two men spend the whole film fighting over who gets to be Clara Bow's boyfriend. When Richard Arlen's character is fatally wounded, his dear friend rushes to his side and kisses him goodbye, because in the 1920s, that was considered the ultimate show of friendship. The movie ends with Jack Powell falling in love with Clara Bow.
Similarly, a kiss shared between Lillian and Dorothy Gish in the 1921 movie Orphans of the Storm often gets attributed as being queer, but it wasn't.
They were sisters playing sisters. None of this was considered unusual.
Pooh-poohing on all of these images that so many people on the internet breathlessly and joyously laud as proud gay history isn't fun. It makes me feel like I'm fucking Ben Shapiro. But if misinformation is allowed to flourish, it allows people like Ben Shapiro to come in and make the argument that queerness is a modern invention and queer people didn't exist in the past.
Everyone loves to see queerness represented in history, but the fact is that none of the stuff in this post would have been seen as explicitly gay and thus shouldn't be called gay today. If we are to understand queer history in its fullness and richness, it is absolutely crucial that we get it right. We owe it to our queer ancestors to recognize, honor, and not embellish the actual lives they lived.
Good post! I know its not the point of the post, but just a fun fact: the photobooth picture you mentioned was absolutely, definitely gay- one of the men is J.J Belanger. Making Gay History has an interview with him here: https://makinggayhistory.com/podcast/j-j-belanger/ and honestly i think finding out the people and histories of each "queer" photo is never a disappointment- when you know who they are and their stories, its even more fascinating!
Fair point, not everything on that level was queer. The times were different, & social behavior was different. Between friends, family, and lovers. But I do know things were queer-coded, not everything. But certain things were queer-coded because it was told by queer storytellers like E.M. Forster. It was a way to tell their stories, but still keep themselves safe & let others like them who knew how to read between the lines and not feel so alone.
Yes, thank you for explaining it. The ways of expressing non-romantic affection used to be very different. That being said, there are at least three other photos with the "not married" sign, two with two men and one with two ladies. Plus in the book where the famous one comes from, there is an image of the two men under an umbrella looking at each other. Which of course does not prove that they are gay, but makes one wonder if they were indeed looking for wives
![Avatar](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="32" height="32"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Thank you for explaining that, historians are not the bad guys for saying that social norms were different. That being said, as an historian, and I'll probably explain badly because English is not my first language, I do think it's important to draw links between historical realities and modern names for them, especially in Queer history, if only so that peole can feel seen? While adding nuance of course. [1/2]
Like, in my sources in early medieval times, I do see a couple of gender non-conforming people, and some that, without saying they are trans, do check a lot of boxes we apply to transness today. All of that with a lot of nuance of course. But that's a whole other conversation I'm starting there, sorry [2/2]
Regardless of your opinions on queer history you shouldn't feel like you're fucking Ben Shapiro unless you are actually fucking him
there is some part of me as a queer person who looks at these and sees not the people who were in those pictures, but the echos of those who could not, would not be in those pictures. perhaps they are not representative of TRUE people existing as Queer in a time before modern queerness, but it is a nice fantasy to hold and keep and perhaps visualize in fictional ways. As a writer, it inspires, even if it doesn't educate.
It’s insane how much the guy on the left in the 4th pic looks like my brother
As a point of reference a 'Boston Marriage' was a MOST discreet institution. Least said, soonest mended sort of deal.
imagine living in a world without platonic hugging n kissing... :-( so sad......... :-(
Excellent points made. BTW Radclyffe Hall is the one on the right.
And so we all suffer from homophobia
Also, the abundant same-sex physical affection common in the past was often actually a function of extreme homophobia. People could freely kiss their bro or gal pal precisely because the possibility of those actions being gay was treated as so inconceivable within polite society.
@buxina Interesting! I also think modern (1960s-) homophobia has created an environment of extreme suspicion as more people became aware of homosexuality as a concept. As people became suspicious of others being queer, they stopped performing gestures that could be misconstrued as demonstrating same-sex attraction.
Very good post. As a queer person myself it is tempting to go diving deep for representation in the past, but scholarly rigor must come first, and an overzealous search for ourselves in the past can end up harming the state of such scholarship by giving an over abundance of false positives.
Thanks for the context!
@shaych03 Exactly!!!
important post with very valid points, but that specific "not married but willing to be" photo IS of an actual couple. it's part of the nini-treadwell collection of historical photographs, which according to its curators contains several other photos of the same couple presented as lovers. stating as absolute fact that these men are "bachelors interested in marrying women" when added context supports a different interpretation is a bit unfortunate on a post trying to discourage people from making similarly incorrect, context-deprived claims.
Have you ever read "Before We Were Trans: A New History of Gender" by Kit Heyam? It has a little bit of a different take on the same baseline thesis, which I think people would find interesting.
