I think you missed the meaning of my remark entirely. I was not standing up for revising history based on current norms and understanding. I am in fact not young at all, which you might have picked up on when I said one of my teachers was Lillian Faderman, but maybe you missed the reference.

In fact I was objecting to the actual phrase "Revising history to suit an agenda is never okay." as this is the assumption of the writer, ie that the op HAD an agenda, and that was the reason they wrote an article about the possible queerness or otherwise of certain figures in history.

I don't see this as "having an agenda", because I don't see any harm in this type of speculative historical inquiry, just as I don't object to many other types of intellectual exploration, as one is free to accept or reject it with no implicit harm to anyone.