reclaiming words?

Language evolves so its just natural way for things to go.

The word gay used to be an insult and wasn't associated with anything positive. It wasn't until 1960s that people reclaimed the word to use it as a noun instead of an adjective. And you can bet that many people hated that people would use the word gay to describe themselves. Some people used to prefer homosexual, but now its too clinical for most people.

I get that you don't like it and have trauma associated with it and that is fine, but for many people the word is empowering. There is enough space for you to avoid being describe as Queer and for people who like it to use it as they see fit

 

Queer was never really an insult that I heard in real life so I havent had much issue using it.

 

I use it when describing myself or others when I am discussing in a community of like-minded people. I don't use the word in real life, and I realize that many people are upset by the word which is why I don't. I personally am not bothered by it, as long as the word is not used insultingly.

 

I can see why reclaiming of words has been done. It can be seen as a kick in the teeth at those who malevolently used and still us the words. But I'm in two minds about it. But I'm in two minds about it (duplication intended). I don't tend to use such reclaimed words myself. But maybe if I did use the reclaimed words I'd feel more positive about the these words. I don't know for sure. Some words have been reclaimed, but many have not. Why some and not others? Some very abusive words and terms have been use and not reclaimed. I still see the creatures who used such terms malevolently as vile creatures. There was never really any excuse for it.

 

My biggest qualm with reclamation is that it more or less accepts the charge laid by the slur in the first place. It continues a categorisation and otherisation in the same language as the original, repressive term. You may try to justify or defend the behaviour or characteristics for which you were originally insulted, but you are accepting that it is legitimate to conceive of the difference in the way framed by the slur.

This applies to some slurs more than others. 'Slut' and 'queer' are both really good examples, because they are slurs which state a person is guilty of conduct or immutable traits that depart from prescribed heterosexual and monogamous social and sexual practices. When you reclaim either word, no matter how much you defend your cause and the morality of your existence and/or choices, you impliedly accept that your justification must be in relation to to the orthodox practice.

I dislike the word queer, not because I find it offensive, but because it accepts a level of otherisation. An identity labelled as a reclaimed slur can only exist in relation to heterosexual norms. It exists as an inverse to, a rejection of or departure from heterosexuality. Whereas the concept of homosexuality can be interpreted to some extent as a thing in itself,* the concept of 'queerness' so reclaimed doesn't effectively challenge the otherisation and exclusion originally intended in the slur. Reclamation may weaken its hurtfulness but it does not adequately undermine it conceptually.

It is not practical to reject the language of categorisation. But reclamation can be harmful to the extent it accepts differences as they have been framed by perpetrators of social wrongs. That makes me wary. I don't think it's emotionally hurtful as much as it is conceptually restrictive.

Where you go from this isn't necessarily clear. A liberal-conservative approach (namely, assimilation of LGBT people into social institutions from which we've been historically excluded) might reject reclamation on the basis that the differences implied by reclaiming slurs aren't fundamental, or that they are completely artificial. A more radical approach might reject reclamation on the grounds that we need to depart completely from any concept of social norms perpetrated by heteronormative discourse - that is, to accept that there is otherness but that the structures from which the slur originates and perpetuates are illegitimate. While those are incompatible approaches, I think it does indicate reclamation isn't a sufficient tool for overcoming the harmful things that have been done to LGBT people, whatever your gender politics.

I favour the former approach (that no significant 'otherness' should be recognised) and it's why I'm not exactly over the moon about reclamation. I understand the impact of repressive history and the need to rectify it. But I reject that my sexuality is more determinative of my identity than my broader cultural and social background in which that repressive history arises and has its effect. I dislike reclamation in that it implies I am a stranger to my own experiences within the dominant culture.

*

Spoiler

This is obviously massively oversimplified, because the language we use around social-sexual behaviour and identity is still very much based on certain moral and factual assumptions about gender.

I also think when you address the term 'transgender' you can't escape relational thinking. 'Trans' denotes an inverse relationship to the norm, a departure from a normal gender. The word 'cisgender' does not fix this, because it simply means 'this side of gender'. The term, even if we don't have a better one, still doesn't really allow us to conceive of being transgender as a thing in itself, which is partly why I think it's quite common for non-homophobic people to be transphobic (or just confused).

 

When my labels were easier and more straight forward: "Gay", "Transgender", and "Asexual"... the word "Queer" used to bug me a lot... It had been used against me as a kid and I didn't like that it meant something was odd or wrong. It felt bad and I had problems with it. In my home town the local gay publication turned to "Q Magazine"... I was so upset when they did that, I stopped reading it.

Then about a year or so ago I started to redefine my labels. It started to get messy and confusing to try to use detailed explanations as to who I am and everything. I needed a really broad umbrella term. So I adopted "Queer". Not because I personally was reclaiming the word, but because the community that I was coming back to had adopted and embraced it so much for so long that it now feels like it means something completely different to me. In fact if a cishet person were to call me "Queer" today... it'd feel about the same if they called me "gay"... I'd be more offended by the T-word, which I used to like and use for myself!

On the T-word... I used to use it to describe my non-binaryness before I identified as such. It was a way for me to say "I am perpetually transgender and I'll likely never go stealth"... It was a cute word, I enjoyed it, and it described me. Then, lately.... people have adopted it as a word that hurts them. When people have used the word insultingly to them they took that to mean that the word itself is harmful and since the community has embraced this more intense feeling behind the word (because it was always at least a little bit of an insult, I'll admit that... it also was short for transgender though)... then it now makes me cringe too. I can't hear the word and think "cute" anymore... I can't use the word to describe myself or hear someone else use it without considering letting them know that it's now considered a slur.

Then there is the 6 letter F word... I remember being shocked when I was new to the LGBT community when boys would call me that in a playful way.... it felt dirty, playful, naughty, insiderish... I thought it was interesting how they used this word in an almost sexy sort of way. I am unfortunately not socially adept to have understood how to use it in that way myself so I never adopted it lol... It's still very much a swear word to me, moreso than "Queer" ever was or "Tranny" for that matter.

 

I never realised that the T word had ever been used as anything but an insult, to be honest... Never really thought about it I guess.

I would only ever refer to myself as a faggot in an intentionally brash or joking way... but I have hardly ever done that. It is quite an aggressive word and it even just sounds aggressive IMO.

I have had the same experience with "queer" as you have had.

 

This was very well put. You make some excellent points and have successfully changed my opinion.You're right, the only way for people to be assimilated as full and normal members of society is to stop ALL labeling, not just specific orientation identifiers but also anything that points to somehow being "other".

 

The T word?

 

The opposite actually surprised me... I had seen it to be analogous to "t-girl"... which I don't think is used as much as a slur, but definitely feels like it has sex-worker associations for me now. The T-word ("Tranny", thanks for helping with that Blast) was a short, somewhat brash, quick way to describe my non-binaryness... The word sounds cute and while I had heard it used as a slur, at the time I had used it as otherwise often enough that I felt like my version of the word had more power. When I popped back into hiding, stopped using terms like that for myself, then started coming back out, I found that it no longer sounded right to me anymore and saw online that the community seems to feel the same these days. The phrase "t-word" had popped up, and people started mentioning triggers. So I changed my mind It kind of strange how much thoughts on certain terminology can change so dramatically over the years.


(Since I mentioned it I feel like I should add that I am sex-work-positive. Personally I think the prohibition of certain types of sex work actually hurt more than help).

 

I only heard / saw "t-girl" used positively or neutrally. And, yes, it sounds cute to me, too.
But the t word I've only heard / seen used negatively.