同性戀的社會建構論認為同性戀不是超越歷史社會的人種，而是 19世紀以後的發明。有一種可稱為「虚構的建構論」（以社會學家 Mary McIntosh與Kenneth Plummer為代表）認為同性戀這個分類範
疇根本是虚構的，雖然同性之間的性行為是普世的現象，但是卻沒有 現代醫學或心理學所界定的同性戀這種人存在。另方面，科學哲學家 Ian Hacking (受到傅柯、Hilary Putnam 、Thomas Kuhn 等人影響）則主張一種可稱為「互動的建構論」：亦即，同性戀這個分類範疇雖 然是被建構發明的，但是由於這個分類和被分類的人之互動，構造出 同性戀的客觀實在性，變成現實的存在、變成世界的一部分。本文前 半部分即在闡釋這些同性戀的社會建構論，並以科學哲學家 Frederick Suppe、古典效益主義哲學家邊沁，以及古希臘羅馬研究者 David M. Halperin的分析來說明同性戀建構論的合理性。本文的後半 部分則繼續闡釋Hacking的思想，並且指出Hacking的建構論立場還 可以進一步區分為保守傾向與革命傾向，保守傾向認為（被建構的） 同性戀的客觀存在是穩定的，革命傾向則認為同性戀的客觀存在是不 穩且繼續演變的。這種不穩定性可以是（例如）由於不斷踰越同性戀 常態或踰越同性戀本質的酷異化。本文指出保守與革命兩種傾向的建 構論都會參與到同性戀的社會建構過程中，亦即，社會建構論是社會 建構的一部分。本文指出革命傾向的建構論較為合理，而且革命傾向 的建構論使得同性戀解放運動得以在同性戀認同的前提下，主張最終 將取消同性戀的分類。此處保守與革命的建構論區分原則，也可用來 檢驗其他各類社會建構論的政治傾向。

Social constructionism sees homosexuals not as a trans-socio-historical species, but a nineteenth century invention. One version of constructionism, citing labeling theory of deviance, maintains that while homosexual behavior is a universal phenomenon, homosexuality as defined by the discipline of medicine or psychology is a fictitious entity or empty category. Contrary to this fictional constructionism, philosopher Ian Hacking, influenced by Foucault, proposes another version of social construction of homosexuals which can be linked to the philosophical tradition of nominalism and claims the “making up” of homosexuals by the invented category of homosexuality. This socio-historically bound reality of homosexuals can be seen as a result of interaction between people and classification, according to Hacking. Consequently, homosexuals can now be said to be existing objectively in the present day of modern society. However, one can further distinguish the conservative from the revolutionary tendency in this interactive constructionism, depending on whether the newly constructed reality of homosexuals is seen as stable or not. The conservative sees homosexuality as a stable objective existence, while the revolutionary sees homosexuality as unstable and always evolving as a result of, for example, the queering of homosexuality that keeps on transgressing the normalcy of homosexuals. Clearly, both tendencies will participate in the ongoing social construction (or destruction) of homosexuals — social constructionism is part of social construction. Interactive constructionism of the revolutionary tendency enables the liberationist to develop an account that will eliminate the category of homosexuality eventually as a political goal, while at the same time working within identity politics that admits the reality of homosexuals.