Request for information

[gilrossini]

Just to put the record straight (if you will pardon the pun) - as Jen said in the last posting, I refer to my study of family history in the context of "Queering", that is, widening it from purely those who in today's definitions would identify as gay or lesbian, to individuals who may now identify as bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex, or as having any sexuality other than heterosexual - so as to be completely inclusive of all. The term Queer has been reclaimed by the LGBTQI community worldwide from our detractors and I am proud to use it. I am in a lesbian relationsip but I also identify as being on the transgender spectrum. I am NOT some snoopy academic looking in from the outside; I live it. Furthermore, any woman of any sexuality may cross dress and most do nowadays. It is what you are inside that dictates your motives for doing so. May I kindly and with all respect suggest, for those of you out there who may be unfamiliar with the sheer diversity of sexualities around, that you read "Female Masculinity" by Judith Halberstam. Then you will understand the difference between wearing a suit as a fashion accessory, and wearing it because it is part of the outer display of your inner being.

[Heather Positive Thinker]

I dont think your research will be able to get a lot of info Im afraid - as how would any of us know about this unless there were letters or as someone else suggests, a prison sentence for same??

Im not sure wearing a "suit" would definitely mean a woman was a lesbian, may be what we would call a feminist nowdays? My own gran, who was apparently a suffragette - I do indeed have photos of her in a "suit" because it was more practical in the work she did - I think she would have been horrified if people assumed from that she was a lesbian.

Same sex lived together but most would appear to the outside world and to their descendants as friends buddying up to share costs of living.

Hmm, you may have to widen the subject a bit to get more than a few lines I think.

Oh, to my parents the term"queer" meant off colour - lol. To dad, "nancy boy" was the term used to define anyone with less than hairy a***d masculinity. And dad had been called that himself on and off during his life as he was a vegetarian from childhood - not something that was trendy or common in the east end in the 1920s.

[gilrossini]

Maculinity

You are quite right to say that wearing a suit does not "brand" a woman as lesbian or in any other way Queer. That is exactly my point; women of all sexualities can and do cross dress and have had to do so for occupational purposes as you say. I can speak not for others alive today, or other people's ancestors; I can only state as fact that my g-grandmother and myself wore/wear "male" clothes as an outward display of our inner gender and sexuality orientations. I also beg to differ regarding the perceived paucity of information on LGBT people in the past. This is a very new historical genre with much work to be done, but as the various LGBT oral history projects around the country have shown, the information is out there. I think it would also be helpful to bear in mind that many same sex couples even up to the 1970's would maintain an outward appearance of "chums" house sharing (in addition to those same sex houses set up purely for practical purposes). I have lesbian friends who even in the 1980's were doing just that, out of fear of being targeted. It was of course especially important for gay men. Bearing in mind that approx. 10 to 20% of the population identify as homosexual (depending on which reports you read), and that this statistic would have been the same in the past if one used the same methods of identifcation for sexualities, I see no reason why with careful research and perseverence the story of LGBTQI people in their family contexts cannot be told. We are all part of the same human family and everybody - straight, gender gifted, differently abled, whatever your sexuality - is worthy of celebration and recording and I encourage anyone interested in a diversity of historical research to take a wide and lateral view of their work so far. The rewards could be greater than you think.

[Asa]

It's an interesting subject, Gil but in my experience careful research frequently exposes oral history as half truth at best. There really is no way of reaching into the minds of the dead unless they recorded their own thoughts and feelings. Anything else is assumption and guesswork.

I strongly suspect that my great uncle was gay but it's only instinct based on a few things my grandmother told me - wish I knew but I never will.

What's gender gifted by the way?

[Olde Crone Holden]

Much depends on oral history in this respect and that is of course coloured by that person's view of things.

My own immediate family were painfully respectable and narrow minded and would have died rather than speak of such things - if they even knew they were "going on". I doubt very much that this kind of "shame" would have been passed down through the family, as it would have died at the hands of one of my ultra-respectable relatives on its way.

I can understand that it might have been an open secret at the time, particularly if one's ancestors were bohemian or arty, lol, (not very likely in working-class Manchester suburbs) but I am absolutely sure that it would have been carefully explained away as "oh, she's very eccentric, dresses in men's clothes for a lark" etc, and never ever even hinted that there was something fundamentally different about her.

My BIL is gay, but it has never actually been "admitted" in the family. Indeed, his mother was still asking him when he was "going to find a nice girl and get married" when he was 45 - he had been living with his male partner since they both left school. Whether this was a desperate last hope on her part, or complete innocence of the facts, I don't know, it was never discussed.

For half his adult life, my BIL's sexuality was illegal. If he does not wish to make the declaration, why should I force him? What he does in bed is his business not mine and I would never bring up the subject with him, unless he did so first.

I don't know any cross dressers. I do know one trans-sexual quite well, but feel that his change of sex is more to do with other psychological issues, rather than any real feeling that he was really a woman.

OC

[maggie_4_7]

I think the point people are trying to make in this thread is that it would be near impossible to know whether any ancestors were Homosexual or a Lesbian mainly because it wouldn't have been recorded in any official document unless of course they had been arrested for indecency in public or commiting a sexual act with the same sex, again not women because it wasn't illegal because it didn't exist.

As Guy as pointed out the 'House of Lords" didn't want to give any young women ideas, they might have wanted to "try it"

It could only be hearsay or if one had letters or personal documents that documented it in private which I expect would be very few and far between. Or again unless the family in question was very liberal and was quite happy to pass this information down the generations. Which until 1967 was illegal for men to have same sex relationships so I doubt anyone would talk about in private or public in case it got 'out'. It mean a prison sentence if proved! As OC also pointed out this would also be coloured by that persons view or emotional state at the time.

And as someone pointed out earlier in this thread in my house when I was growing up 'queer' mean ill and gay meant happy, carefree, or bright and showy.

FAO Joan

mmmm I expect that was some enumerator's assumption or vindictivenss - I wouldn't think it was the normal practice to write that in a census then... even if it were true.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

I also beg to differ regarding the perceived paucity of information on LGBT people in the past.

If the information is out there, what form does it take and how do we access it?

[Joan of Archives]

FAO Joan

mmmm I expect that was some enumerator's assumption or vindictivenss - I wouldn't think it was the normal practice to write that in a census then... even if it were true.

You are probably right Maggie! I wish I'd bookmarked the page now, it was something I'd never seen on a census before, but if my (twig related) ancestor was happy enough to tell him that then good for her.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Not the same thing of course, but I have one census where there is a "head" (male) and a lodger (female).

The enumerator has written "acts as wife" in the margin, a totally unnecessary comment for the purposes of census statistics, so must have been motivated by the personal knowledge and disapproval of the enumerator.

There is nothing new under the sun about human sexual behaviour - except one thing. Until very recently (certainly in my living memory) sex wasn't discussed in any way at all. So I am sure it was all going on just as it does now - but as no one spoke of it, I for one will never know!

OC

[KiteRunner]

Joan, if you tell us your relative's name etc then one of us will surely find it on the census for you!