Louis Crompton in Homosexuality & Civilization says yes and argues further that by not recognizing pre-modern individuals as homosexual we would be stripping modern homosexuals of their history. Crompton argues that the ancients understood homosexuality as a concept and used certain words that specifically refer to men who allow themselves to be penetrated by other men and words used to describe lesbians as proof for his point. However these words are all derogatory and were intended to be insults. He also uses Plato’s symposium to argue that the ancient world understood homosexuality as a concept even if they didn’t have a word to describe it. Though this argument is super compelling it is only one example and not enough to convince me that it was a widely held concept.
Micheal Rocke in Forbidden Friendships, says no. He argues that labeling an individual from the pre-modern era would be taking that person’s sexuality out of historical context. He argues that pederasty is a word that better describes homosexuality in the pre-modern world.
I agree with Rocke. I think we should avoid labeling an individual with a sexual orientation when that person cannot confirm or deny that label. Also, I don’t see being a pederast as being the same as being homosexual. Most of “homosexual history” from the ancient and medieval worlds can be described as pederasty.
I want to know what you all think? Should historians refer to people like Plato, Hadrian, or Donatello as homosexuals or is pederast more appropriate? Does the label homosexual take an ancient or medieval person’s sexuality out of historical context? By not calling them homosexual are we doing a disservice to the LGBT community?
I very much appreciate the construction of your general question, but I think the finer points of your conclusion deserve some more pointed discussion. Rather than attempt to do so all at once, I’ll make brief mention of the items that jump out at me and the conversation can proceed from there.
First, can historians serve the LGBTQ+ community by engaging with the history of minority identities and orientations? Yes! Should that be done? Yes! But, as always, there are issues involved in how this is done, and we have to be careful about our language, approach, and intent. Retroactively applying titles for identity is extremely fraught at best, and in most cases outright occludes our understanding of reality. The thoughts and feelings of historical individuals simply can’t be accurately discussed in the same tone or words as modern people’s, so certain qualifications exist before we even address particular cases.
Second, we need to make a survey of what sorts of under-recognized identities and orientations we’re even looking at. Homosexuality is by NO MEANS the only topic at hand — bisexuality, transsexuality, intersex, asexuality, aromanticism, non-binary identities, etc. all deserve their own volumes — but I’m going to stick primarily with that for now because that’s what you’ve asked about. But homosexuality as an orientation is not the same thing as the modern socially performed gay identity (though obviously the overlap is considerable), and we can’t talk about historical homosexual people’s lives with the same presuppositions as in conversations about their modern ~counterparts.
Third and last in my brief set of digressions is a point about word choice: pederasty is unequivocally NOT an apt label for ‘most of homosexual history’ in any time or place. Yes, it was an important facet of life in certain ancient cultures, but using that name to also apply to relationships between grown men and women even in those same cultures is tremendously irresponsible. Once you take even a single step out of that cultural (and geographical, temporal, etc.) context, all bets are off; ‘homosexuality’ is a broader but vastly more accurate name for what you seem to be asking about.
The history of identity, orientation, and performance is extremely diverse, and its particulars refuse to be lumped together if you intend to do them any amount of justice. If you’re interested in helping people connect with history personally relevant to them, you’re going to be best off when using specific language, personal accounts, and avoiding sets of practices you might deem ‘close enough’ to what they’re discussing. A 45-year-old gay man living in Rome today can absolutely look to history to find similar experiences, but none of those are going to be pederastic. This point is true of basically any minority identity: their history is rich and important, but it’s not mated to other minority identities simply by virtue of sharing a few uncommon features.