[allsummer]

I'm fine with Turing being a hero or a role model. But people are now writing that Turing was castrated for being gay.

> following his indecency conviction, and had nothing directly to do with his security clearance.

It had nothing directly to do with his being gay. You can be gay without starting relationships with homeless boys and getting your house broken into, exposing yourself to blackmail or coercion.

[freedomben]

> It had nothing directly to do with his being gay.

Do you really (personally) believe that? You don't think his gayness was a factor at all?

Seeing the way he was treated by law enforcement, particularly after the facts started coming to light, I can't believe it wasn't a factor. His final charge may have been more for the classified info risk as you say (I honestly don't know enough about the details to have an opinion there), but many parts of the process I think would have gone a lot more differently had he not been gay. Without a doubt in my mind, they would not have treated him so disrespectfully and cavalierly.

[allsummer]

> You don't think his gayness was a factor at all?

It was a factor, but not directly. I believe Turing's gayness is being pink washed. The way I see it, the UK was not castrating people for being gay, but gave this option after breaking indecency laws and being convicted for it.

> particularly after the facts started coming to light

Turing went to police to file a report and casually (perhaps ignorantly or haughtily) admitted to breaking a law.

[freedomben]

> Turing went to police to file a report and casually (perhaps ignorantly or haughtily) admitted to breaking a law.

Yes I agree, but (and I'm honestly asking because I don't know) was it one of those laws that nobody really took seriously or that was still on the books even though it was never enforced? Or was it a crime that was enforced at the time?

Edit: Unrelated to above, but from parent comment, I hadn't heard of "pink washing" before so just dropping a link for others who might not have heard of it either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkwashing_(LGBT)

[allsummer]

The law was enforced, but it seems Turing did not take it seriously. He was openly gay since university, complained the law was stupid, was unapologetic in court, and sought out "sex vacations" after his conviction.

[foldr]

You say (correctly) that there was a law against gay sex, and that this law was enforced, but also that Turing's prosecution and punishment under this law (after admitting to a police officer that he'd had gay sex) somehow had nothing directly to do with his being gay. I'm not quite sure how you square that circle.

[allsummer]

There are laws against rape. Someone prosecuted and punished for rape has nothing directly to do with them being male or a sadist.

Being married is a hard prerequisite for being able to commit marital rape. You don't have to be gay to have gay sex that the authorities learn about.

[foldr]

He was not charged with being burgled (which is obviously not a crime!) or for exposing himself to blackmail (which is also not a crime). He was charged for having sex with another man, and his punishment was a result of that conviction. So his conviction and punishment were absolutely directly to do with his being gay. The very fact that chemical castration was considered as a 'treatment' shows that everyone involved regarded the problem as being 'gay sex', not 'exposing oneself to blackmail'.

[freedomben]

Al Capone was also charged with tax evasion to the fullest extent of the law, even though the gov was rarely if ever that aggressive with tax evaders. Prosecutors/law enforcement go for the charge that stands the best chance of conviction, not necessarily the one that is most accurate.

Personally given how society was at that point in time, I think his gayness was a big factor in how he was treated, but there are better arguments than pointing to what he was charged with as that is easily refuted.

[foldr]

But this is nonsense in the case of Turing. He was simply charged because he admitted to the police officer investigating the burglary that he'd had gay sex. His treatment was in line with that of other gay men of the time who were charged with similar offences (perhaps more 'lenient' if anything). What evidence do you have that there was more to the case than this? I have seen no indication that security concerns entered into the prosecution or sentencing.

Beware that OP's post is full of random nonsense, such as the claim that the younger man in question was 'Eastern European'. (His name was Arnold Murray and he was born in the UK, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain.)

[freedomben]

I don't have "evidence" at all, other than that when the subject comes up most people say that it was kind of a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing. I.e. if you were doing it in public there could be issues, but there was a pretty good gay community where it was kind of an open secret[1]. If you don't believe that to be accurate, please let me know!

> His treatment was in line with that of other gay men of the time who were charged with similar offences (perhaps more 'lenient' if anything).

Not challenging you, but do you or anybody have some numbers on how often this was prosecuted? It's probably impossible to say since by definition much of the activity was underground, but that doesn't match my current understanding of the environment.

[1]: as is always a risk when stating facts, there's a risk of is/ought fallacy here with people interpreting my statement of facts with what I think should be the case. I'm not saying it ought to be this way, merely that it was. I think we've made great progress in this area and I'm glad for it.

[foldr]

It’s so easy to find information about this by googling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38814338.amp

There’s nothing complicated about the Turing case. It was a crime at the time to have gay sex. He admitted to a police office that he’d had gay sex. This led to him being prosecuted.

I’d urge you to spend more time looking at the facts of the case and less time questioning the universally accepted narrative on the basis of what you admit is no evidence.

[freedomben]

You seem insistent that there's no nuance whatsoever involved in this, yet I find this hard to accept.

Just in the article you linked to, it says that 49,000 gay men were pardoned. It also says the law against "gross indecency with a man" was passed in 1885 and was only repealed in 1967. The law against "buggery" was first used in 1533 and was in place until the 19th century!

If we assume that 100 million people lived through those times, and that the conservative estimate of approximately 3% gay population held, then there would have been 3,000,000 gay people during that time. That means that 1.6% of gay people ended up prosecuted. If we only consider men, then 3.2% ended up prosecuted. This seems to me to be a little more nuanced than you are suggesting, otherwise there wouldn't be such a huge inconsistency in enforcement.

Since we're urging each other now, I’d urge you to spend more time thinking about how perception can differ from reality, what the pitfalls are of binary thinking and blind acceptance, and why Socrates encouraged people to have humility about what they think they know.