Does anyone seriously believe we think, talk, or hold these archaic views about an eternal Form of Gayness making a "this" into a Gay Essence? Thus, Gayness would have universal features and properties that define every single instance of every Gay Thing. This kind of metaphysical transcendence of an Eternal Animating Form, or in Aristotle's terminology, "soul," would be an ubiquitous "Gay Soul." Seriously? In the 20th and 21st centuries, this kind of thought and talk survives?
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but "yes." This kind of thought and talk not only survives in the 21st century, it does so quite handily. I don't know that I'd be much quoting Plato on the matter though. Plato is, quite bluntly, wrong. His writings are, I think, far more interesting for their paraphrasing of the views of others. While it would be difficult to do so, Heraclitus might be more illustrative of the character of "essence." Alternatively, any of the Epicurean writers would be helpful.
"Gayness" (if that is what one must call it)
does have universal features that define being "gay." If one does not have them, then one is not "gay." Would I imagine that gays have
only gay qualities to the exclusion of any other? Why on Earth would I do that?
As for the "ubiquitous 'Gay Soul,'" this is a matter for animist theologians, very few of whom play much mind to the rhetoric of Aristotle. Animism is far too gnostic in character to be brought into a discussion that relies so on logic. But yes... this sort of thought and talk also survives.
I
am rather puzzled by Mr. Heersink's frequent references to 'queer theorists." I do not think he characterizes their arguments correctly. Queer Theory is redolent with Constructivism. They would be among the first to argue that there is no 'gay essence." It is the Constructivists who disavow the very concept of essence. It would be the Essentialists who do not (hence the name). Queer Theory might be many things, but I do not think one could call it Essentialist.
Stones are hard (at least, all of the hard ones). "Hardness" is a readily identifiable essential quality. All things that are hard posses it. None of the things that do not possess this quality are credibly said to be 'hard.'
Really... while one might dissemble for a very long time if one is clever, it really is quite possible to tell when a person just isn't 'gay.' They're allowed to not be gay of course. Many people aren't gay. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Just as some stones are notoriously hard (diorite, for instance) and some are infamously not hard (talc), there are people who are 'gayer' than others. That talc is deficient in hardness in comparison to diorite does not make it 'not hard' in most meaningful ways. I would not care to be whacked in the head with a lump of talc, for instance.