Homosexuals And The Law (Press, 16 July 1973)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Homosexuals And The Law (Press, 16 July 1973)
In a series of letters published on 16 July 1973, a correspondence discussion unfolded concerning the definitions and perceptions of homosexuality and transvestitism. The first letter, authored by an individual identified as M., responded to a previous claim made by "J.R.C." that misquoted the Chief Justice. M. asserted that "J.R.C." incorrectly stated the term "homosexual" when referring to “transvestite,” explaining that the judge actually meant "homosexuality." M. noted that it was crucial to maintain the usage of the term "homosexual" to ensure comparability between two cases involving transvestites who engaged in homosexual practices and were charged under homosexual laws. M. clarified the distinction between transvestites and transsexualists, emphasising that a transvestite does not necessarily desire to become a member of the opposite sex; rather, this characteristic defines a transsexualist. While some transsexualists may identify as transvestites, the two groups are not synonymous. In the subsequent letter, Jim Abelson expressed a harsh critique of homosexuals, presenting a view based on his professional experiences. He labelled those who identify as homosexuals as criminals or mentally ill and expressed skepticism about the existence of a “normal” homosexual who engages in respectful, consensual relationships. Abelson further argued that male transvestites were not merely private individuals but often resorted to prostitution, alleging they employed deceit and blackmail. He advocated for legal change regarding homosexuality but warned that societal pressures, referring to “gay” activism in Britain, would persist in demanding lowered age of consent laws and reduced privacy. M. responded again, aiming to clarify the distinctions and misclassification while addressing the issues raised. The editor of “The Press” concluded the correspondence, indicating that the discussion was now closed.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand