Turing was a victim of prejudice, no doubt about it. The treatment of homosexuals by the society of his time was horrific. But reading between the lines of Hodges's text raises doubts about whether Turing's fate would have been any happier if he had lived in our own era. We may be more accepting of homosexuality, but we draw a firm line between the (acceptable) practice of homosexuality and the (utterly unacceptable) practice of paedophilia.
Turing, at the very least, comes close to crossing that line. Hodges cites a conversation he had with Robin Gandy, one of Turing's lovers (told to him, I presume, by Gandy himself, since he's listed as one of the sources) on the issue of whether one should persist in forcing one's attention on a boy of less than fifteen years if he declines them.
Hodges says rather coyly that Gandy had strong feelings on this issue because he had himself been put off sex for a long time by an "over-enthusiastic" suitor. Those are not the terms we would use today in talking about a child whose attempt to resist sexual advances by an older man was overridden.
And it's noteworthy that it wasn't even at issue whether it was okay to approach sexually a child of under fifteen, merely that one should respect his wishes if he was reluctant to respond.
Another uncomfortable moment in the book occurs when Turing proposes to adopt a young Jewish refugee. His father at this point wrote him a letter saying "Is this wise? People will get the wrong idea."
I rather suspect that what he meant was "people will get exactly the right idea," and sure enough, Turing did go on a camping holiday with the boy and did make what Hodges calls "a gentle approach." Apparently, he was rebuffed and let the matter lie, but the whole episode looks uncomfortably like what we would now call "grooming" (and remember this was a child who had been separated from his parents under deeply traumatic circumstances). It was in the context of justifying making a pass at the boy, that Turing came up with the remark to the effect that no boy at a public school could possibly be inexperienced when it came to homosexuality.
His description of the Sherbourne schoolboys he went back to lecture to in 1953 as "luscious" is also rather discomfiting, although it might be dismissed as the kind of camp talk one gay man would use to another without actually meaning anything predatory by it. Then again, it might not.