Right. I have doubts about the academic writer in 1889 using that meaning of "gay", as a phrase it was ambiguous then, and is _differently_ confusing now. Remov

Right. I have doubts about the academic writer in 1889 using that meaning of "gay", as a phrase it was ambiguous then, and is _differently_ confusing now. Removing it seems like clarity not prudery. Indeed the opposite of prudery, it removes (literally) Victorian assumptions about the wearer of fancy clothes.