Essentialism, social constructionism, and the history of homosexuality

Social constructionism is the view that homosexuality is not an atemporal and acultural phenomenon. Rather, homosexuality exists only within certain cultures and within certain time periods, most obviously Europe and North America after the nineteenth century. Essentialism is the view that homosexuality is an essential feature of human beings and that it could be found, in principle at least, in any culture and in any time. In this paper, I argue that the historical evidence available to us does not show that social constructionism is the correct view, and that essentialism is fully compatible with such evidence. Furthermore, I argue that the historical evidence does not even render social constructionism more probable than essentialism, i.e., both views are equally probable in the face of this evidence.