You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In the past, homosexuality has been classified as a sin, then as a crime, then as an illness. It sat uneasily between these three, passionately argued away from each in turn throughout recent history. But as time moves on into a new millennium, homosexuality has never quite left the negative environs of these unsatisfactory categories, or of the strong emotions, shame, disgust and anger, as explored in David Jones's paper.
In thinking about this it occurs to me that there are many aspects of the debate and also other related issues which coexist in similarly uneasy triangular relationships. Any of these can quickly become polarized into a two-dimensional conflict. My talk in Oxford set out simply to list examples in a free associative way in an attempt to keep the discussion from setting fast into a polarization on any one side of any one of the triangles. This polarity might be concerned with diagnosis: perversion, inversion, ‘normality’ (neurosis); or with groups of people: the Church, women, homosexuals; or with mechanisms: paranoia, prejudice, persecution. What emerged in the discussion was the suggestion that another triangle could be completed from topics I had presented two-dimensionally by concentrating only on sexual practice and object choice. From the floor it was pointed out that I had left out the concept of gender identity. It was further clarified that, historically, the concept of gender developed only in the 1960s.
History in general is not strictly what we think it was. We add to it our own retrospective view in the light of further developments. It is surprising that the term, ‘homosexuality’, was first coined as recently as 1869 by Benkert. This led to the labelling of homosexuals, defined by their sexuality rather than this being assigned a proper place within their whole personality.