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

Agreed. I HATE the word queer (a. I was called it as an insult in school, b. the word connotes that we are "weird" and different to "regular people" somehow. Not helpful IMO.) and just because some people are okay with the label doesn't mean I wanted to be included in that definition.

 

I understand why some people dislike it, and I don't go around talking about the queer community, but I really do like the word queer and identify as such.

It's a good umbrella term that is more powerful and more inclusive than any acronym. (GSM just makes me think of phones, personally, and feels even more clinical than "homosexual"; it does the job, I'll admit that much, but I can't see myself using it in informal conversation.)

I also feel, personally, that "queer" in its old meaning, that is, strange or weird, is a lovely word. I remember reading A Little Princess and perfectly picturing the "queer look" in Sara's gorgeous eyes. I write fiction, and sometimes use the word queer in that sense, because I like the way it sounds and looks and fits into a sentence.

Kind of wish we had a word like queer in my native language, actually.

 

Too many labels and letters so confusing I don't like the sound of "Queer" but it is the simplest and true to every label.

 

The point of sharing the pamphlet was not to justify its use. No one who identifies as Queer has to justify themselves or the use of the word. The point was to show how it came into common usage, and where the shift happened--from the word being primarily being thought of as a slur to how some people use it today. The popular shift happened because of that pamphlet.

That is because it -IS- written from a radicalized point of view. The authors were fully aware that they were the radicals, and they were embracing it.

====

I will just lay out my personal views. It will likely make things much more simple than responding to your post point by point. It will also prevent me from having to speak for those who wrote it. The writing stands for itself.

My personal views loosely align with what is written in the pamphlet. I think the use of the word Queer is essential.

1. I see queer people as an actual people. I see and view us as I would view any other ethnic group, such as being Jewish. As a people we are defined by our shared experiences, and when someone identifies as Queer they are also identifying with a shared set of values.

2. When someone says that they are Queer, in my view, they are setting themselves apart from the mainstream LGBT Community. Anyone can be born a homosexual, transgender, or whatever. Being these things does not make you special, unique, or more important than being born heterosexual, cis-gender, or whatever. What sets a homosexual apart from a heterosexual is the oppression the homosexual faces.

This forces us to ask the question: Why does a homosexual face oppression? The answer to that question is because homosexuality is a non-gender conforming behavior. This is what unites the entire Queer community--it is the very thing that unites and binds the LGB with the T, reaches out to include the I, and in turn it is what makes them all Q.

There are two fundamental views on queerness. They are known as the minoritizing view and the universalizing view. These two points of view are in direct opposition with one another, but they exist along a spectrum. The point of view you hold here defines how you see the struggle all of us face.

Those who ascribe to the minoritizing view see queer people or themselves as any other minority. It is similar to being left handed. It is a small thing, that really only has an impact on those who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or whatever. It has no real impact on society as a whole.

Those who ascribe to the universalizing view see queer people and queerness as something that has an impact on everyone in society. It is not something limited to simply those afflicted with a "condition." This is not something a queer person chooses for themselves, but something that happens instead by acknowledging and openly embracing their queerness. The danger in this view, and why so many people who hold to the minoritizing view, is that it validates much of what our enemies say. It legitimizes their point of view, because it proves that we are a threat to their culture and way of life.

On the extreme ends of the spectrum, those who hold the minoritizing view want to completely assimilate. They want their queerness to be irrelevant to who they are, and they want to fit into society as it is currently constructed. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the extremists who hold the universalizing view do not believe assimilation is possible, and therefore they seek total segregation and isolation from non-queer society and people.

Someone who identifies with the Queer movement embraces the universalizing perspective, but they do not embrace segregation and isolation. Instead, they embrace confrontation. They do not seek to assimilate into established society, but rather to radically change it to include people like themselves. The degree of change can vary, but by the nature of desiring that change the Queer individual seeks to change what is already established. They are actively threatening the established culture and their way of life.

3. Every society and culture that has ever existed has faced the challenge of queerness. The very nature of queerness means that we cannot fit into the most common cultural norms--a man who is homosexual desires to be with men not women. It is obvious in every culture that has ever existed that male and female exist. This is obvious because of procreation. However, how does a society and a culture deal with people who seek out relationships that are non-procreative? How does a society and a culture deal with people who were born biologically one sex but feel that they are a different sex?

This question has been asked and answered many, many times. Different cultures have viewed us differently, and how we were viewed shaped how we saw ourselves. It shaped the roles we could or could not perform within that culture and society. What is unique about us is that we always stand outside of what is common. Most people are obviously heterosexual, and most people obviously identify as the same gender that they were born as. The queer person does not and that marks them as different.

In some cultures, we were celebrated. We were made into priests or shaman, and that which made us different also made us special. That specialness, to them, got translated into blessed and holy, and the queer individual became linked with the concept of crossing boundaries. Because the queer individual crossed gender boundaries, they were also believed to have the power to cross the boundaries between the living and the dead, and the boundaries between the mortal and the divine. They were lifted up and celebrated by their culture, viewed as a vital necessity, or feared for the power that they could wield over an individuals soul or spirit. Some of these cultures still exist today, and others exist as faded echoes and shadows of themselves as colonialism and the spread of Christianity and Islam destroyed or oppressed them.

In other cultures, we enjoyed varying degrees of acceptance and tolerance. Then, in cultures such as our own, we were outright repressed and open displays of our nature were punished and actively persecuted--often with the power of the state backed by laws, and at other times by mob rule.

4. In our culture we had no identity, no narrative to understand ourselves, and no real words to define ourselves. The road that led us to where we are today began with Karl-Maria Kertbeny, who coined the term homosexual in 1869. He did not understand homosexuality as we do today, but he forever changed the way we understood it. Prior to this point in our cultures history, the homosexual had no identity. We were defined by our actions, and the words used reflected that: bugger, sodomite, and pederast being the most common at that point in history.

However, it was not long until Karl-Maria Kertbeny's word was adopted by the mental health community, and homosexuality got labeled a mental illness. The oppression continued, but something started to change. People who were once defined by their actions, started to define themselves by a shared identity. This truly began in earnest with the Homophile movement, which was the precursor to the modern gay rights movement.

Everything shifted and changed after the Stonewall Riots in June of 1969. Up until that point in our history, we had been an oppressed community, living on the margins of society. It was the first time that we really and truly fought back, and it is what sparked the modern gay rights movement. This displaced the homophile movement. It was much more militant and radical.

In June 1990, another shift happened, and it took place with the pamphlet that I posted. It is when the Sodomite, who became the Homosexual, who became the Homophile, who in turn became a Gay, started to become Queer.

5. The Queer mindset is different from those who came before it. Those who came before identified with the heterosexuals, and they wanted to emulate them. Their identities were entirely constructed by and limited to what was acceptable to heterosexuals, with the "minor" exception of their queerness (minoritizing view point). The Queer individual sought to define themselves outside of the boundaries of what was acceptable to heterosexuals; they stopped worrying about making heterosexuals comfortable with them. The Queer did not seek to assimilate into the culture, but instead sought to dismantle and reform the culture.

To the Queer assimilation meant accepting the premise upon which the culture was built. Perhaps most importantly, it meant accepting institutionalized sexism. It is the innate sexism of society that sets all queer people apart from it, and thus the Queer individual does not believe that assimilation is even a possibility. In fact, any attempt to integrate that which is queer into mainstream society and culture, by necessity rewrites the definition of what is acceptable and socially tolerated for males and females. Acceptance of that which is queer changes how the culture understands and relates to gender.

6. Within the community itself, perhaps the biggest difference for someone who identifies with Queer, is how they view themselves intrinsically. Anyone can be born a homosexual or transgender. It does not make you special or unique. However, culture teaches you to hate yourself. It teaches you that you are less worthy than a heterosexual. Because you were raised in this culture you internalize this message. The Queer individual rejects the message of the oppressors with the harshest and strongest terms possible. The Queer individual loves themselves, believes that they are worthy of love by others, and demands respect from those that oppress them.

The Queer individual is someone who has emerged from under the heel of an oppressive society, unbroken, unbent, and proud of who and what they are--embracing their authenticity in spite of what they have been taught. This is what makes the Queer individual a radical. A Queer individual is unapologetic.

7. Queer people are a minority within the LGBT+ community, because most LGBT+ people embrace the messages they have been taught by society and culture. Even if they do not see themselves as inferior, they cannot help but feel inferior. They see the world through the lens of the straight or cis-gender person that they were raised to be, and they struggle to find a way to fit comfortably back into that mold. They do not like being different, and would love nothing more than the queerness in them to be seen as some minor thing--like simply being left handed.

The Queer individual rejects this, because they do not see themselves as inferior, nor do they feel inferior. They strive (with varying degrees of success) to see the world beyond the lens of the gender binary and heteronormativity. They do not seek to fit into a mold, but rather seek to be themselves--whoever and whatever that might be--and seek to force society to accept them as they are, not as how it wishes them to be. They embrace their difference, they do not hide from it, because they believe that which makes them different is also what makes them special and unique.

8. Therefore, the word Queer is an appropriate word. Queer means strange, weird, or different. To the majority of society that is what we are--we are not like them, and we do not seek to be like them. They used the word queer to shame us, because they feared us. We accept the word queer because that is what we are, we are different from them, and they should fear us because our very existence is a challenge to their cultural and social understanding of gender and sexuality. A Queer person does not seek to make peace with the culture of the establishment, it seeks to overthrow it, and to put a new culture in its place.

====

I cannot speak for other people. I speak only for myself, and to me, the above is what Queer means to me and what it means when I use the word. Other people may have their own reasons, but mine are loosely rooted in that pamphlet that I posted and the evolution in thinking and understanding since that time. In other words, I identify with the "queer theorists" and "queer academics" as you call them.

 

Aldrick: I could so marry you if we were both straight. LOL

 

People act like queer just means not straight but everyone knows there's way more to it.. I don't feel like being gay is a defining part of who I am and I'm not some queer radical so I'm not subscribing to a term which suggests I do/am

Also for real I've not once heard it used irl as an empowering term, only ever in the same sort of contexts you'd hear the word faggot. Just imagine I go to my straight friends tell them I'm queer they wouldn't have a clue because that is the only way the word is used here

I think it's pretty insensitive when people insist on describing people as queer who don't want to be

 

This reminds me of a discussion we had in one of my classes, when a professor came in to speak to us about the LGBT group.

I now regret not taking part (in this campus group) before graduating.

Anyway back to topic!!

I personally don't care for the word "queer". In my mind, it has a strange ring to it. I wouldn't refer to myself as "queer" and I'd rather others not refer to me that way...however I won't take offense if someone did; provided it isn't an insult or an underhanded remark of some sort.

 

I think radicalism is all well and good when it is undertaken voluntarily by a person, but to falsely claim that other people are radicals by changing a neutral abbreviation to one so associated with this radicalism is wrong.

No matter how worthwhile a cause it would be wrong to "invent" supporters to your movement. Lets take feminism for example. Its a worthy cause but to state "all women are feminists" is incorrect. Some women don't identify as feminists or feel themselves anti-feminists, and whilst we can argue that as a bad thing we have to respect that self-determination.

Similarly radical feminists like Valerie Solanas could not validly claim to be a spokesperson for all women, or claim all women are like her. Now she may have believed these things to be true, but that is a personal belief, not fact.

Which is perfectly fine, as that is their personal choice. To apply their views on others who may not agree with them, or to take away other's voice by "acting in their interest" is not great.

Ultimately I believe you can only truly represent yourself and those who share similar beliefs and interests. I as a man cannot be a spokesperson for what women want - it's not my place to do so. Likewise I don't feel its appropriate for a person who identifies as queer to be defining what the LGBT community as a whole wants - particularly when they hold a minority viewpoint (as you yourself have validated).

Homosexuality doesn't conform to the norm of procreation, but I don't see how its "non-gender conforming behavior".

Of course it can be in certain expressions, but the LGBT community is not universally gender non-conforming.

I think its important to state though that "queerness" is an academic theory, and not established scientific fact.

Again I think its fair enough if people who identify as queer wish to club together and use these tactics to achieve their goals (they have every right to do so, freedom of association is a human right after-all).

The real problem (which is what is being addressed in this thread) is when these people state LGBT = Queer as though they are one and the same, rather than Queer being a seperate movement.

That behaviour completely censors a large majority who may hold, as you put it, "minoritizing views". Its stating that their beliefs or lifestyles are irrelevant as they "do not conform" to what being Queer is or should be about. This to me is the great irony here: in order for the Queer movement to "challenge norms" it requires conformity and homogenization of beliefs.

As stated above, yes I can see (as I'm sure most people can) that homosexuality does not fit in with certain procreational norms (typical reproduction), but even then there can be similarities, shared experiences or conformity in that gay people often can and do want offspring. Now I'm sure there will be a counter-argument existing that that is all part of "gay people wanting to fit in with heterosexual norms" and once these norms are shattered gay men will no longer want kids. I don't buy that personally, I think its perfectly natural and normal for some people to want children, hell it may even be in our genes (even if we aren't all programmed to be able to reproduce/have heterosexual sex, some of us may be programmed to want children - thats not that far-fetched a theory).

Now aside from that procreational norms I don't see what other norms being gay automatically breaks. You state "how does a society and a culture deal with people who seek out relationships that are non-procreative?". Well quite easily! Plenty of heterosexual couples undertake non-procreative relationships and that works fine (perhaps sometimes it's our similarity with heterosexuals that causes friction, not our differences?). Why though would they want these relationships? The same reason gay people do (note the italics: thats a shared hetero/homo experience or a shared norm there): for sex, for companionship, for love or for a combination of these things.

That can only be truly said for those who identify as genderqueer or trans.

So to state LGBT = Queer seemingly is stating all LBG don't identify with the gender they were born in which is obviously pretty crazy.

Now lets say for one second that that did ring true and all gay people were seemingly gender non-conforming. One question: Does that not completely delegitimise transexuality? If we are all gender non-conforming then surely we as LGBT are a. all "transgender" or b. transexuality doesn't actually exist? Now again, both of those options seem crazy to me.

Do radical queer theorists (who are essentially advocating the removal of gender as we know it) believe transgender people are just somehow mistaken or misled? Do they believe trans people are "bad queer role models" because they aren't countering what gender means by just living freely in their bio-bodies? Surely they must think having corrective surgery is "giving in to cultural norms", no? Even as a non-trans person I'd find that very offensive.

No, It is when some of those who were the Sodomite, who became the Homosexual, who became the Homophile, who in turn became Gay, branched off and became queer.

Whilst I appreciate that might not be your exact opinion, and that might have been meant harmlessly, to me I'd find that very offensive.

Its essentially saying any LGBT members who do happen to fit in the current society are brainwashed robots who need freeing, and queer people are somehow our "enlightened saviours" able to see things for how they really are. This isn't the film Equilibrium!

Now lets take little old me for example. If I do seem to slot in quite nicely with heterosexual society, how do I "undo" this brainwashing? Should I shun all my conformist interests and force myself to like perceived opposites of these? Should I over-analyze every aspect of my life and think "do I want to do this? Or is that heteronormativity?".

"Mmmm, this steak is delicious. Oh no, wait. I've just been programmed into thinking that. I'd best become a vegetarian".

At the end of the day nobody (not even queer people) can live completely free of cultural norms - they will always exist. We can loosen certain norms perhaps, but radically overthrow them? Nah.

Can non-queer LGBT people not be unapologetic and proud of who they are?

Nows the point where it actually is becoming offensive, you are generalising to a massive degree here.

You are describing people's current existence (no matter how comfortable and happy they are) as somehow defective, damaged or inferior.

To a casual observer I'm seeing parallels with the straight homophobic mindset "queerness" is supposed to be challenging: queer people criticising other LGBT people's way of life or stating they "need to change" or be helped. At best that can be seen as a little patronising, at worst it can be seen as downright ignorant.

But again you get many perfectly happy and perfectly healthy "gender-conforming" gay people who do not feel inferior, who are genuine and not "seeking to fit into a mold".

You know I can accept that change might be needed for those who currently do not fit gender-norms. But to pretend that this is a universal problem amongst every non-hetero cis person is inaccurate, and it seems the only reason people are pushing to use queer as a replacement for LGBT is to give more statistical clout to their own personal agenda. (after all people are more likely to listen to "10% of the population feel this way" than "0.5% of the population feel this way").

Well thats perfectly fine for queer people, but the word is not for everyone.

---------- Post added 3rd Jan 2015 at 10:07 AM ----------

Exactly.

Could you imagine me as a white person calling a black person the N-word and then saying "Hey! Whats your problem?! Its being re-appropriated so its no longer offensive, you'll just have to get used to it. Oh, you prefer black? Well I'm sorry but 10% of your people spoke out and they chose the N-Word as the new term for you, its called a democracy, deal with it." :dry: Naturally it wouldn't fly!

---------- Post added 3rd Jan 2015 at 10:24 AM ----------

I feel as you do here.

To me, my sexuality is a relatively small part of me, certainly not the most interesting or defining thing about me, I have double jointed thumbs too you know! (/sarcasm...but I do love my thumbs).

To me it seems sexuality means a lot more to those who do identify as queer, and thats absolutely fine (human diversity, each to their own, yada yada yada). Be yourself, its all cool. But a problem is it seems many queer radicals are blinded by a thought process of "I feel like this so everyone who is vaguely similar must feel like this too".

 

You are making no sense. Here you claim that you are somehow being co-opted, as a feminist might claim that all women are feminists. Yet, in the very next point you clearly see me draw a distinction. You will notice that throughout what I wrote the word queer is both lower case and capitalized. That is not an accident. There are queer individuals (lowercase) and there is the Queer Movement (uppercase). There is obvious overlap, but they are not the same.

As I pointed out, there are many queer people who hate what they are, or wish to minimize their difference as much as possible. They want to assimilate into straight society, and would preferably disassociate entirely from the larger Queer Community. (See the difference in the context in how the word is used here? One capital, one lower case?)

The feminist movement is a good example. Not all women are feminists, but many feminists are women. All women benefit from the feminists actions, regardless of whether or not they identify with or agree with her actions, beliefs, or goals.

By that logic, every feminist should quit fighting for the rights of women. After all, there are millions of women who would defend their own bondage and abuse to the very death. Similarly, every organization that fights for the equality of Black Americans should close up shop, because there is an Uncle Tom out there somewhere who does not like what they are doing.

It has nothing to do with what queer people (as a whole) want. It is not some type of parliament where everyone gets both a vote and the ability to veto. It is about what queer people as a whole deserve. There are millions of queer people in this world who believe they deserve nothing, and I am actively fighting for them and telling them that they are worthy individuals, deserving of love and respect, as equal and as valuable as any straight person. It just so happens that I am right, and that they are wrong. What they happen to believe at the moment is not relevant, because my goal is to convert them to my side. My goal is not to join them and wallow in self-hatred, self-pity, and apathy.

You do not view homosexuality as a non-gender conforming behavior? So, you argue that it is socially understood and acceptable--on a cultural level--for two men to be together in a romantic and loving relationship? Or is it more accurately understood and accepted that a man should (on a cultural level) enter into a relationship with a woman?

It is ridiculous to think the latter is false and the former is true. It is the reason that EVERYONE is assumed to be straight from birth, and that people have to come out of the closet at all. It is because everyone assumes that a male is going to enter into a relationship with a female. A homosexual deviates from this common expectation, and that is what makes him queer.

That makes no sense at all. We are talking about a philosophy, here. A way of thinking and a way of being. It is like saying feminism is just an academic theory, and not an established fact. It makes no sense.

This makes no sense, and has no relevance to anything that I wrote. Where, exactly, did I say that a homosexual male cannot or should not want or desire children? Where did I say that this was "gay people wanting to fit in with heterosexual norms?"

I did not write any of that. It came from your head, and you put words into my mouth.

There is nothing inconsistent with being queer and raising children. In fact, there are kids raised by queer couples that refer to themselves as "queerspawn" (their words) and consider themselves to be "culturally queer" (again, their words). They feel more comfortable in the queer community than in the straight community, even though they themselves may be heterosexual.

Here are some useful links, where they speak in their own words:

Ellen Kahn interviews author Abigail Garner

Queer Spawn: A Documentary

"A Queer Spawn Manifesto" an excerpt by Jamie K. Evans from her book "Who's Your Daddy? And Other Writings on Queer Parenting"

A Queerspawn Manifesto by Through Our Roots

You are telling these people that you want to erase their identity. If you are going to have children, you owe it to them (and perhaps yourself) to educate yourself about what it means to be queer and raise children. I also highly recommend Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is, which is both the book and the title of Abigail Garner's website. There is lots of good advice there for the unique issues faced by queer people, and how they navigate the world with their children. As well as advice to children of queer people.

Honestly, I am debating whether to respond to the rest of what you wrote, because you start to go off the rails, and completely put things into my mouth. You make assumptions about what I meant, read too much into my words instead of taking them at face value, and invent things whole cloth (like the stuff I quoted above).

I will, however, just make one final point. I think the "official" acronym that includes everyone is LGBTTQQIS2SPAA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Spawn, Two-Spirit, Pansexual, Asexual, and Allies), and it is likely to continue to grow as time passes. Good luck including everyone without the use of a single culturally recognized, easy to understand, and easily definable word. Be sure not to accidentally exclude or forget anyone absolutely every time you talk about the community. People will (rightfully) complain about how you make them invisible by doing so. Oh, and do not make some insulting half remark about "you are included with the + sign!" That just means you included them as an afterthought.

 

Secretly I hate who I am I only do things straight people do because I want fit in!!

Like is it not possible to imagine that people do the things they do and enjoy the things they enjoy not because they hate their true selves and want to conform but because they do actually want to be like that.. maybe for the same reasons why a lot of other people want to be like that. Maybe all queer people aren't just like you?

 

I'd rather LGBT.

 

I'm sorry if you took anything that I said personally, considering that I was not speaking directly to you, and was speaking in generalities. The only recommendation that I have for that is perhaps to ask yourself why it struck such a nerve, when it obviously was not directed at you. I was merely pointing out an obvious truth about the community as a whole.

Do you really think that the majority of the people in our community are the shining pictures of mental health? That the majority of the people in our community are filled with overwhelming self-compassion, self-love, an inner sense of inherent worthiness, and pride in who and what they are? If you believe this then either you are hanging around an exceptional crowd or are in some severe denial. A simple quick glance around these forums will prove my point.

People who have "double jointed thumbs" don't throw themselves in front of oncoming traffic in an effort to commit suicide. People who have double jointed thumbs don't struggle with their identity. They do not worry about what their parents will say when they find out. They do not walk around in our society worried what other people will say or think about them. They do not live in fear of people finding out the truth. They do not risk losing their job. They do not risk being tied to a fence, beaten within an inch of their life, and then left to die. They are not beaten, tortured, or psychologically abused by their places of worship, their families, or communities. People who have double jointed thumbs do not end up psychologically scarred from their experiences.

When a member of our community engages in minimization, they insult every single person who has gone through any of the above, and even those who have not. They want to pretend like being queer is not a big thing, that it is some small part of who they are, when they know damn well that society does not see it that way. When someone runs around saying, "I don't want being gay to define me!" They ignore the fact that in the eyes of society, it does define them. They want to pretend that they are not different, that they are the same as everyone else, even as culture and society is telling them that they are not.

You know the children's story the ugly duckling? It is the perfect metaphor for being queer. The story is about a homely little bird that suffers verbal and physical abuse from all those around him. He wanders from place to place, never fitting in, always afraid, and always being the outsider. In the end, after fleeing from the last place, he spends a miserable winter alone outside, hiding in a cave near a lake that has mostly frozen over. When spring arrives a flock of swans come to the now thawed lake. The ugly duckling, now fully grown and matured, finds himself unable to endure a life of solitude and hardship anymore. He decides to throw himself at the flock of swans, deciding that it would be better to be killed by such beautiful birds than to live a life of ugliness and misery. He is then shocked when the swans welcome and accept him, and it is only then that he realizes, by looking at his own reflection in the water, that he has always been one of them. At the end of the story, he spreads his beautiful large wings for the first time, and takes flight with the rest of his new family.

That is what being queer is like--we grow up in a world dominated by straight people. We are the ugly ducklings, we are different, we don't fit in. We are frequently afraid, suffer abuse, and rejection. Acknowledging your queerness is about realizing that you are really a beautiful swan, and all the things that other people saw about you and called ugly, disgusting, weird, strange, wrong, deviant, perverted, twisted, abominable--those are the things that make you beautiful. To me, the Queer Movement is about carving out a space in society, where people like ourselves can spread our wings, be who we are, and belong to a family--even if it does not include those who we called family before we came out of the closet.

Do you have to use the word "queer"? No. Do you need to identify as "queer"? No. It is not about a word, it is about the values and goals that it represents. Being caught up on a single word misses the point. You are from the U.K. the slang for cigarettes there is fag. If I visit the U.K. should I grow horribly offended, and take it completely personal if someone asks if I "have a spare fag?" Simply because in the United States the word fag only means one thing, and it was the word that was used most commonly as a slur against me? No, that would be ridiculous. When I started watching some TV shows from the U.K. seeing this done was jarring at first, and yes--it bothered me. Then I got over it, because I understood the way they were using the word has no connection to the way the word was used against me. It makes as much sense to assume that when someone sings "Deck the Halls" during Christmas saying, "don we now our gay apparel" that they are going out and dressing like gay men? That they are becoming drag queens, or something? No, that is utter nonsense. They mean gay as in happy or joyous. Words have meaning, intent, and context. If I use the word queer and you are offended by it, it is not because I am using the word as a slur, it is because you are interpreting the word I am using as a slur. I have explained what that word means to me, and shown the historical context where it was reclaimed. If someone has a problem with me using the word, it is not because I am using a slur, it is because they have a problem that they need to sort out for themselves. I can show compassion and empathy for their feelings, and I frequently do--but that is it. They have to sort out the rest for themselves.

 

A single letter being capitalised or not is not a massive difference.

Ultimately using the word Queer to describe the movement and then carrying it over to cover all gay people creates the assumption that all LGBT people must prescribe to this particular belief system or cause which is not the case.

If you call yourself a Communist, people will presume you believe in communism. If you call someone else a communist, again people will presume they are communists. If you call people "queer" (capitalised or not) then people will assume that a. they are comfortable with that term (not the case), and b. they prescribe to certain queer ideals or theories.

Well, there would probably be benefit for womankind if certain feminists quit fighting for women, yes. The ones who do more harm than good through their radicalism, alienating the people they need to obtain support from.

I think its largely down to tactics and end-goals. You could have goals that would benefit one particular group at the detriment of others - it would be seen as worthy by some members of that group but not as a whole. Additionally certain tactics to achieve these goals may in fact be detrimental or divisive.

I think there is a fundamental difference between securing equal rights, and wanting to do so by radically overturning cultural norms. I'm sure most LGBT agree that the former is something to strive for, however many will disagree whether that tactic is necessary or even possible.

Now I've heard radical queer discussion about "getting rid of the binary gender system". All well and good but how exactly is that going to work? We've had the current gender system for millenia, and its not going anywhere in our lifetimes. Sure we can add to it or embelish it, but whether we like it or not "male" and "female" is here to stay. Now its such radical thoughts like that which act to put me off queer movement and is one of the reasons I don't want to be identified as Queer (apologies if I'm getting the capitulation mixed up, its confusing).

But again you seem to be seeing things in a very two-dimensional way where the only possibilities are people being "heteronormative" and oppressed, or queer and liberated.

And whether you like it or not consensus is required. For queer ideals to ever be successfully adopted you need the support of more LGBT people as well as the acceptance by the hetero majority.

If you preach one thing and 90% of gay people go and tell straight people "yeh, don't listen to him, we don't believe that" you are fighting a losing battle.

Additionally, as as minority within a minority (i.e. a very small group) you do kind of require the society majority's approval or at the very least tolerance. Its all well and good being radical and saying ":***: you straight people" but as a massive majority they are the ones with the upperhand. In order for any civil rights movement to gain ground they have to either a. work with their oppressors or b. use violence/terrorism which is not a long-term solution. Think of the black civil rights movement. It ultimately required the white people in power to change the laws, black people would not (as an oppressed minority) be in the position to achieve this all on their own.

Traditionally, yes. Now? Well it depends where you live, but its becoming far less non-conforming. I'm sure you will see that as a direct result of queer politics, but I think its generally just exposure.

You see, that would be another queer ideal I disagree with: I have zero problem with people assuming I'm straight - its simple statistics, I'm what, 9-19x (depending on statistics) more likely to be straight so its a reasonable assumption. The only serious issue is if I correct them and they are homophobic.

Now I'm sure there are people out there who would prefer if we called everyone "it" until we found out their preferred gender, and only ever used neutral terminology when asking about people's loved ones but I think that is being a little bit too PC.

I was referring more to the "minoritizing" and "universalizing" bit, those are just concepts at the end of the day. In reality its not that black and white.

Well you seemed to be very heavily implying that the fact that gay people don't fit in with procreational norms is the biggest reason we should view ourselves as queer, here:

I simply pointed out that heterosexuals themselves surely challenge these norms by having non-procreational relationships (does that make them queer? Can they be? Does that defeat the point? Who knows anymore? ), and many gay people happily fit in with these norms by continuing to have children. I just think we can be a lot more similar to heterosexual couples than perhaps queer theory makes out or is prepared to admit.

Its not, although it would be pretty downright hypocritical for those queer activists who dismiss homosexual marriage as "assimilation" (the likes of Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore) to be doing it, given it is arguably as much as a "heterosexual norm" as marriage (as the heteros did technically do it first!).

Its not exactly "their words" though is it. They have likely been raised hearing the term queer and influenced by their parents on that one.

I fail to see how I am telling them that, you are definitely misrepresenting me here.

I don't identify as queer, if people do that is fine. If there kids want to call themselves queer, again fine although I disagree with their terminology (see, no silencing).

If those parents or kids label me queer against my will or tell me what I should be believing or how I should be raising my kids to fit with their own personal agenda then yes, I will take serious issue with that.

Well apologies if I am getting confused. I'll admit myself I see the queer movement and queer theory as a bit minefield full to my mind of contradictory beliefs and ideals. Perhaps that lack of accessibility to possible simpletons like myself is something queer theorists can work to address.

Well as time passes it hopefully won't even be as necessary. Its mainly a banner for achieving equality.

Exactly, it cannot be done.

Queer is not "culturally recognized" for the meaning you are intending for it - in many cultures it is still in active use as a slur.

And as demonstrated by this thread its most definitely not "easy to understand, and easily definable". If as LGBT people we are sat here debating whether queer is a movement, an umbrella term, an ideology, a specific identity or whatever then how on earth do you think the masses are going to correctly catch on? Its something that is always going to be incredibly ambiguous (the exact opposite of "easily definable". If I tell straight people I'm queer most will have to ask "what does that mean exactly?". As non-perfect LGBT is at least it points people in the right direction 99% of the time.

But why can't I, aswell as a sizeable majority (rightfully) complain about how queer makes us as non-queer but gay people feel invisible? Because of its history as a slur it is not as all embracing as you make out, it is ostracizing. Why do minorities such as "Spawn" (a new one for me!) deserve to have their feelings protected, at the expense of my and many other gay people's own. Are they more worthy or respect? Surely offending 10 people is worse than offending one?

 

I use LGBTQPPAETCETCETC ,personally, sadly, it hasn't caught on yet

 

Not necessarily. They are expressing their right to live their life how they feel they should surely? Perhaps being gay is not a massive thing to them. Who are we to judge and call them "insulting"?

Now I personally don't see a massive otherness to straight people of my gender that makes me feel "distinct", just a key difference in my sexual partners. Now I definitely appreciate that others may not feel that way (either they are in difficult circumstances, or added have gender identity issues) but I don't think it is a universal thing.

Now how do I view homophobia then? Well, I see it as a remnant of the past were the elite members of religion dictated what was right and wrong, with this being fed to the masses. I think its just an ignorance or narrow-mindedness in straight people, rather than a fundamental rejection of gay people because they are different. Now I think some straight people see gay people as different, but I think thats an "optical illusion", I genuinely don't think (on the whole) we are that different.

It is? If anything its the exact opposite of what you have described, its a metaphor for assimilation! The duckling starts off different and is rejected for it, and it is only when he evolves into becoming visibly like the other swans that he is accepted.

I think "gay" and "fag" are different in that they are homonyms, they have very different meanings and context clearly dictates whether they are appropriate or not. If used in London a "a pack of fags to smoke" would have no gay connotation. Also the gay slur "faggot" is not believed to directly originate from or have any links other than in name to the cigarette term (which itself comes from the word "fagging").

Queer however is a slur for gay, and is being pushed as a term to cover gay people - it is muddying the waters a lot more and because the "queer" is still tied to gay it is inevitably linked to the slur when you hear it.

 

I think people are forgetting that at one time, gay men and women were given hormone treatments and lobotomies to "cure" them of their homosexuality. Because gay is becoming no big deal these days, its easy to see yourself as "normal" and everyone else as "others". The ones who seem most against the word queer are the ones who basically see themselves as heterosexuals, with one exception. Of course you're going to be against it, then. It was different in the 70s and 80s, because people associated homosexuality with BDSM, aids, drag, and other "deviant" behaviors.

For me, queer is "Yes I'm different, but this is who I am, like it or not." And at times, it means separating yourself from mainstream LGBT politics, as this thread shows perfectly. Those of us who don't want to assimilate and blend in, who want to continue the fight for equality without having to compromise who we are.

And self-definition is a huge part of it.

 

Ehh well i have been in a bad mood lately so sorry if I sounded aggressive, buut this idea that people who aren't proper queer are somehow acting or their repressing their true self just so they can fit in is something which comes up all the time here and I think it's shit. Like I am actually pretty comfortable with myself and I don't resent being gay .. I just actually don't feel like it informs my character as much as other people feel it does for them aka it actually does feel quite insignificant to who I am. I don't play sport, go gym, do engineering, want to have a conventional ish family just because it's expected of me, I actually do want these things, but apparently I should give up all the heteronormative/whatever stuff I do because I'm gay it makes no sense to me

Yeah, I'd never play down the struggle people can have with gender and sexuality stuff, it breaks my heart that people struggle with this and I'm not apathetic about it. But society having issues with lgbt shows to me a need to change attitudes in society not segregate ourselves from it, and it's not like it's an impossible mission if you think about the change we've seen in the last few decades or even last five years or so

On queer my main objection to it is exactly that it represents certain values and goals aka it's political rather than just a bland description of gender and sexual minorities. Clearly we're not quite on the same page on lgbt political stuff so I don't like people applying a term to me which suggests I do subscribe to these ideas.. that it also implies some sort of genderqueer and is used only as a pejorative term where i live is extra. Essentially it's a loaded term and it doesn't describe me very well at all so I'd like it if it weren't used to describe me. If people call themselves queer that is not at all a problem for me, though

 

I use queer to describe myself sometimes, mainly because the original meaning is strange/odd/unique, which I am. I wouldn't use it to describe someone else though incase they find it offensive.

 

Actually, it does matter. It is how the English language works.

If someone says "queer people" they are simply using it as short hand for LGBTTQQIS2SPAA+ people, rather than having to remember all that and spell it out. If someone says, "Queer Movement/Community/etc." they are talking about a particular identity and political movement. Those two things are separate.

Not everyone who identifies as queer identifies with the Queer Movement. Not everyone who uses queer, understands the original politics behind reclaiming of the word. As a result, you will see it used in multiple different contexts.

That is always a valid debate to have.

The issue I have with that is that is not my position. Yes, I believe that radically overturning cultural norms is necessary. However, I also believe that it is inevitable.

The reason I say this is because our current understanding of gender is predicated on a strict gender binary. There is a clearly defined understanding of what men are and what women are, and there are certain roles that they are expected to perform in our society.

When the culture at large begins to embrace our community, the culture as a whole has to modify its understanding of those gender roles and social expectations. This is the reason why some straight people, when encountering a gay couple, will say something like, "So which one of you is the wife?" They are expecting that one of us in the relationship is going to perform the "female" role. That is not how gay relationships work--at least generally speaking.

Similarly, as the trans* community is embraced by our culture, people have to begin modifying their understanding of what gender means. The cultural expectations we have surrounding gender become questioned. Someone born with a vagina and XX chromosomes may in fact, not really be a girl, but instead identify as a boy.

Then as culture continues to grow in acceptance of our community, particularly of people who do not easily fit into the binary, such as Gender Queer, Bi-Gender, Agender, etc. individuals... the cultural and social concept we have for gender begins to erode.

This is a cultural byproduct to accepting us as equals. I view this as a byproduct of equality, and yes--as a necessary thing for true equality to happen. Therefore, I view it as a worthy goal, because I want us to be embraced as equals.

It means that someday in the future, a heterosexual couple giving birth to a baby will not automatically assume that their child is male or female, nor will they assume that their child is heterosexual. ...simply because, they won't know until later on.

I cannot speak for other people, but for me when I talk about getting rid of the binary gender system, I am not talking about erasing male and female. I simply do not think that is possible, at least, not the way that I understand gender identity.

On the most base level there is biological sex. Typically speaking, this is male or female. However, there is technically a third sex, which is more of a category known as intersex. On the level immediately above that is gender identity. Gender identity is INNATE just like sexual orientation. For most people, their gender identity matches their biological sex. For some people it does not, and even most intersex people have a gender identity. On the level above this is where all the social and cultural stuff comes into play, this where we start defining what a man is, what a woman is, and what they do.

It is that third level there that I want to challenge, for the same reasons feminists (which I also consider myself to be) challenge it. I believe in gender equality, and I do not like throwing people into small little boxes which tell them that, because you are one gender you are limited in such-and-such way. When I talk about destroying the gender binary, this is what I am focused on.

I am also focused on the second layer, but not in getting rid of male and female gender identities--I do not believe that is a possible thing to do. Instead, I am focused on expanding the types and definitions of gender identities that we have beyond simply male and female.

So, yes, in the end, the gender binary is destroyed... but gender still exists. It still matters to people and their identities. It just looks radically different from what we have today, in which there are only male and female, and no identities are socially recognized beyond that.

Yes, I know there are some people who want to erase gender entirely, but I think they are misguided. I do not think they really understand how gender identity works, and why it is important. ...and even if we COULD erase gender identity entirely, I would find it unethical to try and erase peoples identities.

I am not trying to take anything from anyone. I am trying to expand what is possible, and create more opportunities by erasing restrictions.

That makes more sense. However, as I said--there is a spectrum. Most people are not at the extreme ends of either spectrum. I am a radical compared to the majority, but I am still not at the extreme end. I lean toward universalizing, but the true extremists there are segregationist and believe in isolationism. I do not support that at all, and believe it is a destructive behavior.

However, I am still in more agreement with them, than I am someone who is on the opposite end of the extreme: someone who embraces the minoritizing view and is an assimilationist. I find that view abhorrent, because it is an active desire to erase all of our identities. I also view it as a inherently failed ideology because, as I said above, as the broader culture embraces us they are actually assimilating into queer culture rather than the other way around.

The overwhelming majority of people fall somewhere between the two extremes. However, most people will either lean toward the minoritizing view or the universalizing view. The difference between the two perspectives is this:

Those who lean toward minoritizing believe that their sexual orientation or gender identity is simply that just impacts them alone. It does not influence anyone else. It is just a small aspect of who they are, and society should see it as such.

Those who lean toward the universalizing position disagree, and see sexual orientation and gender identity as something that impacts everyone. I outlined above why this is the case, and why I believe the universalizing perspective is correct. As acceptance of our community grows, the social expectations around gender and sexuality begin to change, the cultural roles and social expectations around gender begin to change. Acceptance of us leads to this, and it is an inevitable byproduct of that acceptance.

The problem with the universalizing point of view is that it acknowledges one of the key arguments of our critics, namely that they are under attack and that their beliefs and way of life is threatened. It acknowledges that they are not some crazy people who hate us for no reason, but instead acknowledges that they are actually fighting to preserve their culture and way of life.

If you genuinely believe that your deity created the world in seven days, and created man and woman as the only genders, and that notion of gender is based on biological sex... you are going to have a difficult time fitting into a culture that starts to see biological sex and gender as separate things. If you believe that those two genders exist to "be fruitful and multiply", and the primary role for sex is therefore procreation within the bounds of a marriage... you are going to have a hard time accepting people who want to enter into sexual and romantic relationships that can never lead to procreation.

What happens to all those people who believe those things as more and more people accept us? They become the minority. They become the ones marginalized, because people will accuse them of preaching hate and bigotry. People will no longer identify with their values, and will instead identify with ours.

The culture will have shifted--it will have changed. Whether or not they all understand this on an intellectual level is unclear, but many of them understand it on an intuitive and gut level. So, yes--as a gay person who is politically Queer I recognize the inherent conflict being waged. I understand why the culture war exists, and know that it ends either with my full equality or my marginalization. I understand that in order for me to have equality, their views, values, and beliefs can no longer hold sway. That those beliefs, views, and values must be challenged and dismantled, and in the process they will be marginalized as a result.

In my view, we are trapped in a position where it is kill or be killed. In order for us to exist fully, openly, and with complete equality their culture must die. I believe that this is the just, ethical, and moral thing to do because, unlike them, I cannot change my sexual orientation. They can change their beliefs. Something has to give--one side has to win--and I believe we should be that side because we should not have to suffer simply for what we are. Just as I grew up hearing that change was possible for people who were gay, I say to them now: change is possible. They can change, they should change, and if they want a place in our society in the future--they must change.

The problem I have with this view is that, what it essentially means is that once we achieve equality, our identities should be erased. That everything we have built should be dismantled, the community dissolved, so that we can go on to live "normal" lives.

This is a complicated issue that I would like to address more in the future. I have a lot of fear surrounding this potential outcome.

I would prefer to offend no people, and I recognize that some people have a problem with the word. However, obviously not everyone feels the same way.

If someone were to come up with a new word, that everyone can embrace, that held the same resonance to people who identify as queer, then I am open to that word. People who dislike the word are not going to change the opinions of those who it resonances with, and so the best way to deal with the situation is to come up with an alternative that is even better. If the alternative really resonances with people it will catch on, and it will be used instead.

Until that happens, unfortunately, even though I know it bothers you and others -- the word queer is around to stay. Barring any new word that is totally awesome, it is my hope that one day it loses the slur connotation, the same way gay has lost its connotation with happy, and instead gets used for what it was appropriated to be.

I think we may be talking past one another here. You are right that we are not fundamentally different than straight people--as in, we are not a different species or something. We are still human beings. We share similar desires, goals, and aspirations as straight people. However, the problem has nothing really to do with gay vs straight, or whatever. It has to do with our existence vs established culture.

In other words, the problem is not about us. The conflict is not about us. It is about the culture. We are arguing over fundamental questions. What is a man? What is a woman? What is gender? Who can be what gender? Are gender roles acceptable? If so, what are appropriate gender roles for each gender? What makes a family?

These are fundamental questions that we are challenging, simply by coming out of the closet and attempting to live our lives. So, while you may not feel like it is a big deal, it is a big deal to other people. And whether or not you think it is a big deal, they could make it a big deal for you since they are the majority.

You are essentially agreeing with me in the end there, based on what I said above in this post. Of course, it is not direct, but the same underlying premise is there. When you say: "I see it as a remnant of the past were the elite members of religion dictated what was right and wrong, with this being fed to the masses. I think its just an ignorance or narrow-mindedness in straight people, rather than a fundamental rejection of gay people because they are different." What you are essentially saying, is that those people and those that follow them need to change. You are telling them that they are wrong and they should change. Change into what? Where are you leading them?

Does this make sense to you? You are telling them that they are wrong, and need to change. Yet, at the same time, some people want to say that they are no different than them. They are trying to fit into their worldview... and my argument is that they cannot. It is an impossibility, because their worldview is too small for us. We do not belong there, because we do not fit there.

I think the fundamental difference between my views and your views, is that you recognize the need for the culture to change, you just have not sat down and thought about where you want it to end up. Or what it will look like once it gets there. ...and I do not mean once the culture simply just accepts gay people, but instead when the culture accepts all the members of our community. Stop and think about the consequences of that, and the impact it will have on culture and society.

I am not sure how you ended up with that reading of it. When I read the story, it is a good metaphor for a gay person being born into a predominately straight family. Their parents are straight and so are their siblings. They do not fit in like everyone else. They feel excluded. They suffer abuse along the way, sometimes from our families themselves, sometimes from outsiders, and sometimes from both. We feel varying degrees of loneliness and depression as a result of being different, and then ultimately we find people like ourselves--our community. A place where we fit in with other people who are like ourselves. It is about finding out where you belong. It is about learning that the things that other people hated in you, actually made you beautiful, and learning to take pride in it. Most importantly, it is a story about a transformation of self-image, of believing that you are ugly, into believing and realizing that you are beautiful. That is why I think it is a good metaphor.

You are missing the point. I am talking about how I felt. For me, growing up, the words fag, faggot, fairy, pervert, freak, and cocksucker were all the common slurs used against gay men. I might have heard queer once or twice. So for me, queer was never a real issue. The word fag was an issue for me. When I first heard it uttered by someone from across the pond, I nearly fell out of my chair. It caught me off guard.

For a long while I had a very visceral reaction to the word. The context was irrelevant. It was the word itself. What it meant to me, and how it was used against me. I did not like it at all, and I hated every time I heard it uttered.

Eventually, I got over it. There was a point at which I had to say words are just words. I got to a point where I realized, you know what? I am a faggot, and that is okay. I like men. I don't just like men a little bit, I like men a lot. Yes, I want to suck their cock. Yes, I want to fuck them in the ass, and yes I want them to fuck me in the ass. And yes, I also want to love them, too. So, yes, they can call me a faggot, and that doesn't bother me, because that is what I am.

Will people try and hurt me with the word still? Yes. However, I have to question myself as to why it hurts. Is it because it is untrue? No. It is true. Is it because they intend to hurt me by slinging an insult at me? Well, then, why do I care what they think about me? If they have a problem it is their problem, not mine. If they hate me so much that my mere existence causes them angst, then good. I should take satisfaction in that, and I hope it ruins their day. However, I should not allow their bigotry to ruin mine.

My problem with the word fag, was that I felt shame surrounding the word. I did not want to be that thing, that horrible thing that everyone hated. It was a dirty word, a bad word, used to tar people and discriminate against them. I did not want to be associated with that, but at some point I realized it was not the word that was the problem--it was not even the people using the word that was the problem. It was the culture that taught them to hate me that was the problem.

So, words like that do not bother me any more, because I have accepted who and what I am... and I am proud of it. I love being gay. I am proud of being gay. I survived a lot of shit and tough times, have tons of emotional and mental scars, and I would not change any of it to be straight. I am what I am, and I love it. I am proud of it.

You mentioned earlier that it did not bother you when people mistook you for being straight. It does bother me when people assume that I am straight. It bothers me, because I went through a lot of shit to get to where I am today, and by calling me straight they erase that history. I want people to know that I am gay. I don't want to hide it.

It is kinda like a Catholic Priest and his clerical collar or a Muslim woman and her hijab. These are outward signs of their religion and faith. For them, their religion is a fundamental part of who they are and their identity. For me being gay is a fundamental part of who I am and my identity. Calling me straight is the equivalent of going up to a Catholic Priest and calling him an Atheist. He would rightfully be offended, in part because you would be incorrect, but also because you would be undermining a fundamental part of his identity.

Maybe you do not identify with being gay that strongly. That is fine. However, for me I went through a hellva lot of shit to get to where I am today. That struggle defined who I am and what I became. I would not be the person that I am today without those experiences. As a consequence, being gay is a huge part of who I am. There is no way someone can understand me, relate to me, or tell my story without seeing it through a very gay lens. It is a story that I do not believe most straight people can relate too, simply because it is so far outside of their own experiences, which makes me sad.

 

It is quite weird to be a queer, but it is bad to be sad about being part of the lgbt. Some of us just accept using these terms even when it has negative connotative meanings because of the pride they have in their identity. It is similar to how feminism, and feminist are feared by men. We can also see it in the Black Panther movement. However queer does not bring fear as lgbt people are still treated as a protected minority.

We are RE- endanger, hardly productive :/
-E