Isn't it weird how no one ever says to not call historical figures straight because straightness is a modern construct and we can impose modern meanings on "man" and "woman" without much or often any tut-tutting about modern lenses?

Like no one should try to directly equate modern western identities to pre-colonial cultures' genders. But like why can cisness and straightness be treated as normal and natural at any time in history, but suggest Elagabalus might have been transgender and suddenly everyone's

wagging their fingers. Because the word "transgender" is modern and can never be used to describe someone who was assigned one gender and explicitly declared their need and desire to be assigned a different one, even casually. But Constantine's cisness is unquestioned.

I don't mean existing culturally supported gender roles in precolonial societies, or existing culturally supported orientations. I just mean people like this: https://twitter.com/TheRaDR/status/987171135535149056

It comes off a lot like "You can't have any history because your current conditions are informed by Western ~values~ being used to stamp out any possibility of a history for people like you."

Replies to my tweet in response to this is what prompted this thread. The original tweet is about Shakespeare, the discussion is about Shakespeare. And still the "we can't conclude anyone is gay" from the professor mentioned in the tweet. https://twitter.com/dancingofpens/status/1309296803771187201

But we can of course conclude that they are straight.

Someone explain why the Athenians stereotyped Cleisthenes in ways extremely similar to how gay men these days have been stereotyped pls. Read Lysistrata for context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleisthenes_(son_of_Sibyrtius)