LHMP #445d Derry 2020 Lesbianism and the Criminal Law Chapter 4

In 1921, Parliament debated, but did not pass, a bill that would have criminalized “gross indecency between female persons” as part of a general male reaction to the new freedoms and social power women were obtaining. There was a belief that if women engaged in lesbianism, they would never again be interested in men. Unlike in previous discussions, lesbianism was named and discussed explicitly, though the proposed law still danced around it, using the general term “indecency.” This clause was added to a bill that would have closed some loopholes around sexual crimes, and Derry asserts that adding lesbianism was meant as a deliberate poison pill to derail the original. Arguments against the lesbianism clause included the idea that enshrining it explicitly would give women ideas, via the ensuing press coverage of trials. (The original bill was raised again and passed in the next session, but without the lesbianism clause.)

The chapter discusses reasons why lesbianism was chosen as a poison pill, as well as why it was proposed seriously. There were suggestions that women were luring girls into their houses for sexual exploitation. A rising familiarity with sexology, and its concern with lesbianism, was also prevalent though this is rarely referenced in the parliamentary debate. The clause was presented as creating gender-neutral laws regarding sex crimes. Feminist groups that in general supported the revisions to sex crime legislation were often vulnerable to suspicion of lesbianism, with many unmarried and sharing their lives with female companions.

Lesbianism was becoming a more visible theme in popular consciousness. During World War I, women as well as men were identified as blackmail risks due to homosexuality. Dancer Maud Allan, appearing in a private performance of Oscar Wilde’s Salome, faced charges of lesbianism that she met with a libel case, with a key argument being that Allan’s familiarity with the word “clitoris” was proof of her lesbianism. Lesbianism was a suggested to be a symptom of a general national degeneracy. These arguments were entangled with historical theories about the decline of classical civilizations, and the concerns of the new eugenics movement (though some eugenics proponents argued that lesbianism was harmless as it was self-limiting in reproductive terms).

The following are my somewhat less coherent notes about the content of the chapter.

Arguments against increasing the penalties for homosexual behavior included that anti-homosexuality laws created the opportunity for blackmail. The medicalization of sexuality was at that time viewed as progressive rather than homophobic. There was an increasing reaction against legislating morality generally. More specifically, conservative views weren’t ready to embrace the equivalence of male and female sexuality that anti-lesbian laws presumed.

There is a discussion of sexological theory and differences between continental versus English attitudes towards lesbianism. The medicalization of homosexuality occurred earlier for women than for men. The feminist movement of “new women” was challenged as causing/reflecting women’s moral and physical weakness.

What did parliament think they were addressing in terms of lesbian sexual acts? The details don’t appear in the speeches, but some hints show up in private correspondence. One letter refers to legislating against “the sale of any implements required” (which may presumably be understood as dildos). While both “gross indecency” and “buggery” were addressed separately for men with different penalties, there was no conception of non-penetrative “indecency” between women – or at least that fell within the topics that Parliament considered unspeakable. Discussions indicated a discomfort about criminalizing romantic female friendships. “Female inverts” were imagined as always “masculine” and socially nonconforming.

The 1921 debates existed within a wider anxiety around gender roles, particularly among elite men. Women were entering previously exclusively-male fields, such as police, parliament, and law. There is a discussion of changes in the social make-up and visibility of class and race. Feminists were not unified in their attitude towards lesbianism. Some grounded their philosophy in the idea of “separate spheres” seeing lesbians as unfeminine, while others embraced a rejection of marriage and motherhood that was more supportive of lesbianism.

Women were only beginning to be able to vote and stand for parliament. (There was only one female member of parliament in 1921.) Women were beginning to enter legal professions, and be able to serve as justices and jurors. All this meant that female voices did not contribute directly to the 1921 debates and lesbianism was still framed as a topic whose discussion was restricted to men.