I really don’t have a problem with NOT EXCISING the fact of a historically significant person was gay/bi, but if and only if such is somehow relevant to the curricular/ contextual treatment of that figure. And usually, a person’s sexual orientation just isn’t any reasonable part of the *reason why* he or she is historically important.
Example: Leonardo da Vinci was probably gay; Michelangelo certainly was. But in K-12 studies, is that likely to be genuinely worth mentioning? Probably not.
Why is it necessary to mention every historical personality who might have been gay, when it is never mentioned that, for example, Johann Sebastian Bach was straight?
Lots and lots of leading political and cultural figures through the ages were alcoholics and adulterers, too. Far too many to list here. And why are their lifestyles passed over in silence in the grade school classroom, as if they were irrelevant to their achievements-— or would some bigot be irrational enough to suggest that this behavior fell short of society’s norms?
Sigh. Guess I need a /sarc
“Leonardo da Vinci was probably gay...”
In an exhibit on Leonardo at the Museum of Science, Boston, one of their captions stated that there was a rumor in 15th century Italy that Leonardo was homosexual. The matter was taken to court and then dropped because of a lack of evidence. In the 21st century, however, this is taken as evidence (in some circles) that Leonardo was homosexual.
The “gay” rights movement is fond of claiming that various famous dead people are homosexual because the people themselves are not around to set the record straight (no pun intended). It’s a tactic. They want to win by any means necessary. They make these claims to help make homosexuality acceptable.