Hacker News Reader

Comment by azernik | Hacker News Reader

In this case, though, they did identify as gay: "But Syrett writes that the 50 letter-writers he studied identified as gay, at least privately, and did not marry women. "

View on HN

Perhaps they would not describe themselves as gay as a primary identity, but rather as a facet of a broader identity. This type of complication is the essence of queerness: people are different even though they share things.

Note, I do agree with you, I am trying to clarify terms only.

I don't think "identify" in your quote is meant in the same sense as GP. I read the quote as meaning merely that they weren't confused about their sexuality, but weren't willing to let that define them any more than eg their hair colour.

It's worth noting that remaining unmarried, in that era, was itself a pretty loud social signal.

I don't think that's really true, in the sense of signaling homosexuality, even if being single was very slightly risqué.

It didn't 100% signal homosexuality, but it signaled that something was odd, with homosexuality as a possibility.

I'll also note that a lot of gay people from that era report that they felt pressured to be heterosexually married to fit in. I have a couple of friends from a more recent era, currently in their mid 60s, who felt that pressure when they were younger. One had "an arrangement" with his wife, and two "came out" in their 50's and had extremely messy divorces.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com