The words themselves are modern inventions, reflecting the western medicalization of the concepts, which in turn reflected bigotry — declaring something an “illness” is a great way to get people on board with eradicating it. But gay people and gay relationships existed in pretty much every society for which we have records, long before the British decided to coin a new word. (And in fact, so did trans people.)

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, etc.

Your ignorance on this is truly stunning.

> reflected bigotry — declaring something an “illness” is a great way to get people on board with eradicating it

It's quite true that homosexuality used to be viewed like that. And yet, strange as it might seem, even that was a significant step forward from earlier perceptions of MSM which essentially were reminiscent of the Graeco-Roman model. Obviously these perceptions were also colored by bigotry, but we can see parallel changes in the discourse among male gays themselves.

Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You keep referencing talking points from ahistorical views of two societies as though they represent the entire world. I suppose to you, they do? You might be better served by reading about the world at large. Off the top of my head, Japan provides an interesting case study in views of homosexuality (and bisexuality) pre- and post- western influence.

Seriously? The older term for homosexuality in Japan literally translates as "the way of nqbyrfprag oblf" (I ROT13'd the last two words as they're IMHO likely to trigger trauma, offense, or both trauma and offense.) Some "case study" indeed! (Needless to say, the modern, Western-informed outlook now common in Japan could not be more different - but that supports my earlier point.)