Why do some of us sometimes call the LGBT community the "Queer Community?"

If people don't understand what being homoflexible is, I just say I'm queer. I'm fine with it (then again, I never got insulted with that term; now I would just say to them, "Yeah, and proudly so!"). But I understand if others aren't.

 

Personally, I am all for reclaiming queer. It does have an edge to it, with it being used as a negative slur, but I don't think of it as a slur when LGBT+ individuals use it. It's inclusive. Cis-hets get that it means "not straight", even if they don't get concepts like "homoflexible", "asexual", or "genderfluid". LGBT is alright, and I don't mind the acronym, but I like the sound of queer. It rolls off the tongue.

 

I know some people hate the word homosexual, but it's never bothered me to hear it, not nearly as much as queer. I know where my personal dislike of the word stems from and I feel as though I should just get over it, but strangely enough, I can't.

I've learned not to react to it, or object to it, but I don't like it myself.

 

I'll use queer community when I am talking with people who I know are ok with the term. Otherwise, I'll use GSM instead. I personally am ok with reclaiming the word queer, But I know not everybody is ok with reclaiming it.

 

I don't mind homosexual either. It seems emotionless to me; academic.

 

I suppose you could just keep adding letters to LGBT, but at that point, you may as well just say the entire alphabet.

It's amusing to see some of the responses here. If you don't like what a word means -- change it. "Gay" used to primarily mean happy, but now, well, you already know that.

But that may be too idealistic...

Personally, I have no issue with the word "queer". I do think it has a slightly nasty sound to it, though, for a word. So, I understand why some folks may not like it. Other than that little nitpick, I'm indifferent to it.

 

Me too. To me homosexual is just factual and scientific sounding, I like it for those reasons. Plus with the Latin it does actually make sense (simply meaning same sex), more so even than words like "gay" which itself is essentially just slang derived from words implying prostitution and promiscuity. And heterosexual works nicely as there is a directly equivelant term with heterosexual, its very balanced in that regard.

The problem with queer is that is has always had negative connotations in parts (due to the very meaning of the word being a negative descriptive), and its use for gay people originated from homophobia. Still to this day it is used as a homophobic slur.

I like GSM too. I think most people would understand Gender and Sexual Minorities to include transgender people, gay/bi/asexual people, genderqueer people without too much of a struggle.

The same cannot really be said of Queer Community. I think even those liberal enough to understand that it was being used in a non-offensive manner would just assume it was about lesbian and gay people - theres nothing really to suggest it includes for example transpeople, or asexuals as "queer" in most peoples minds is primarily used to refer to gay men.

Words can change yes, however I think it is important for some words to be allowed to die out.

Take the debate re appropriation of the word "n****r". Some people argue the word should be transformed into an acceptable word, however the real problem with this is it can weaken the historical significance of the word, and the oppression it has caused. If "n****r" did become commonplace, and an acceptable term for black people it would cause future generations to forget or be unable to imagine that aspect of black history and the racism and power that term once held. You'll end up having kids sat in history class thinking "so that slavemaster called him a n****r, whats wrong with that? Its not exactly a bad term.". I don't think thats a pleasant thing at all; like with the horrors of the world wars I think its very important we remember the past accurately to prevent it reoccurring. Plus theres the fact you are continuing on the "legacy" of the racists by perpetuating the word.

Now interestingly, in some ways "queer" is more offensive than the aforementioned slur in that whilst "n****r" started out as a rather neutral descriptive of a persons skin colour (coming from the Latin niger meaning black) and the word itself is neutral in that regard (its the historical usage that tainted it), "queer" was specifically chosen by homophobes for its meaning and suggestion of something being wrong, defective, broken or austere (and the word itself still carries those meanings today). As such, even if we change the acceptability of "queer" from a slur to an acceptable noun it is still always going to be tied to those meanings.

To me personally being homosexual is "normal", "healthy", and "unremarkable" - you simply cannot fit those adjectives under "queer" as it can mean the very opposite of those things!

 

It doesn't bother me either and I like it more than the word 'gay', which I do not personally like.

GSM also rolls off the tongue relatively easily and summarizes it all up a lot better, if you ask me.

@ 741852963 I was going to respond to Kaiser's post, but I can't think of too much more right this minute that you haven't covered; Great post there.

 

Just to add something to my post.

I've seen quite a few supporters of the use of "queer community" actually suggesting we should embrace the "abnormal" connotations of the word queer as, in their words: "gay people are abnormal" or "we are weird".

I think that logic is absolutely flawed. There is a massive difference between something being relatively infrequent statistically and it being deemed "abnormal". Ginger hair is statistically infrequent; there are technically more people in the world who are gay or trans than people with ginger hair (only 1-2% of the population will have ginger hair in contrast to the estimated 3-10% who will be LGBT). Yet we would not for one second consider ginger hair an "abnormal" trait or weird, and to use words to this effect would quite rightly be seen as insensitive or downright offensive.

I just don't think the language is compatible. Its hard to say homosexuality is natural on one hand, then "abnormal" or "queer" on the other - the two words don't fit together. "Naturally abnormal" is just a bit of an oxymoron to me.

 

Queer does make me uncomfortable but only when someone tries to use it to describe me... It doesn't bother me if other people use it for themselves though. That's not my choice to make for them and I respect that.

Generally prefer GSM community, but I'll say LGBT when I'm being lazy...

 

I like queer, even though I realize it used to be offensive in the past. We're reclaiming it and it feels easier than LGBT for some since It's more inclusive to other people in our community. I like calling myself a queer woman since I don't feel comfortable with saying 'lesbian' all the time.

Words change with time so I don't think everyone who uses a term means to offend. I despise the term 'Virgin' because it was historically misogynistic and exclusive only toward the cis/hetero community, but I'm not going to look down on anyone who says it if they're not using in a specific heterosexist way.

 

I don't see an issue with wanting to stay sexually inexperienced (I'm that way personally) or feeling proud of not giving into pressure. It's the homophobia surrounding it; as a female if I had sex with a female I am still seen as a "virgin", but if I endure rape by a man, I am not a virgin. As a male, if you have sex with a man, you are still a virgin, but if a woman assaults you without your consent, you are a non-virgin. That is the actual terminology surrounding it and why the word is a problem, staying sexually inexperienced is not.

 

*manly American gay cowboy voice*

You ain't queeeeer.


Now, seriously, I might be an ignorant straight guy, but I'd much rather be done with a separate LGBT identity altogether (even though I understand it is not possible at the moment). We're all humans, our... preferences notwithstanding, and we need to grow closer together, not drift further apart.

Besides, segregation leads to marginalisation.

 

^this^

 

I am personally okay with the reclaiming of the word Queer and I embrace it fully. I understand that some people are uncomfortable with the word, and I am empathetic toward their discomfort. It is one of the reasons I still use "LGBT Community" and "Gay Community" a lot still. I know it can raise some peoples hackles when I use the word Queer, but for me personally it is an important word.

To me being a Queer (capitalized) is a political statement. It has an appropriate hardness or harshness to it -- an edge. That is how it is supposed to sound. It is a radical stance.

Here is some "Queer" history for you...

Ask yourself, how much of what is written there is still relevant today? Today is the first day of the New Year -- 2015. This was written a quarter of a century ago -- 25 years. How much has changed? How much has remained the same?

When you hear stories about young queers such as Gabriel Fernandez and Leelah Alcorn -- tell me that the world is different. These young members of our community were killed by their own families.

I do not believe in wasting my time fighting over what letters we should include in the alphabet soup. I am too busy focused on fighting so that our people do not get murdered or feel that they have no choice but to take their own lives. I am fighting to create a space where we can be open and be proud of who we are, and for a future where no queer anywhere on this Earth grows up being taught to hate himself like I was. That is what I am fighting for, and so for me Queer means many things but highest among them is Pride and Community. It means that I am part of a community and a movement that is larger than myself.

---------- Post added 1st Jan 2015 at 01:48 AM ----------

I should also probably throw in a link to information about Queer Nation. A bit of their history and accomplishments can be read about here.

 

I like the term lgbt just fine.

 

I prefer LGBT. If you wish to include all the other variations, LGBT+ is the umbrella term I would choose.

 

To be honest I don't see how that pamphlet in anyway justifies the use of the word queer, all its done is replace the more appropriate term (gay) with an offensive or "edgy" one, queer.

Its interesting that the very same pamphlet uses apostrophes around the similarly offensive word faggot and never dares address the reader as such - most likely because its published in New York where faggot is the more prominent slur. Now if you would be A-OK with being addressed as a faggot, "reclaiming" that word, or switching the use of queer in the pamphlet to faggot then fair enough. If that would bother a person in anyway but they continue to use queer I think thats an extremely hypocritical stance - its effectively choosing to ignore the negative experiences of others because you don't care or it hasn't affected you personally. It'd be like me using "n****r" for my own purposes because I'm not black so I've never had it used against me - very hypocritical.

I'll give you a little personal example here. When I grew up, "mong" was an extremely common playground insult (thrown around like "idiot" or "stupid"). It wasn't until recent years that I learned the offensive origin of that slur (derived from "mongoloid" from the early days of Down Syndrome being researched - essentially the slur is calling someone a Down Syndrome sufferer and implying thats a bad thing). Now I would never dream to use the term because I know just how offensive it is, and how it has been used to hurt others. It annoys me seeing people who are just as aware of queer being used as a slur yet still continuing to try to apply it to others against their will. It just smacks of a lack of compassion and consideration.

Now back to the pamphlet. There are other things I disagree on with that. It appears to be written from a very radicalised point of view (which seems common amongst "queer theorists" or "queer academics") which I don't feel is particularly helpful, and if anything is downright patronising.

Take this point: "It's a way of telling ourselves we don't have to be witty and charming people who keep our lives discreet and marginalized in the straight world." Its essentially assuming that anyone who does happen to fit in, or be witty or charming for that matter, is "buckling to heteronormativism". Now I've seen this theme before and its downright offensive. Contrary to what these academics and theorists may expect or even prefer, not every LGBT person is some gender-bending, norm-breaking social-rebel. A great many people just live and enjoy there lives being who they are even though, shock-horror, they may involve them having interests and hobbies in line with traditional gender roles for their gender. I myself have never had to hide or change my interests, I like what I like. Now I appreciate that some LGBT people may be in a different position, but I wouldn't attempt to denounce or censor their experiences like these academics appear to do to so many.

And that whole "I Hate Straights" segment, to me I just can't fathom how someone could think behaving in such an aggressive manner would ever do any good. Lets look at one part

Now I'm supportive of female equality, and think women across the world put up with a hell of a lot of crap they shouldn't have to. But lets say a female friend came up to me and started mouthing off that "Men are pigs, they cause all the worlds problems, they are all so arrogant" without acknowledging my presence as a man who doesn't behave like that in that conversation, because I should just "figure out" whether it applies to me or not. I simply wouldn't put up with it, and I'd likely just walk away and that female would have probably lost one personal ally, supporter, and friend. How that behavior would in anyway help with truly achieving female equality is beyond me.