Talk:Queer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

I have an idea for new series box called Queer (or maybe LGBT). it would include: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex, queer. and also gay_village, rainbow flag, gay rights, heteronormativity --Sonjaaa 13:31, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

LGBT

Lesbian

Gay

Bisexual

Transsexual

Transgender

Intersex

Queer

Gay village

Rainbow flag

Gay rights

Heteronormativity

There's one on the right, with those links in verbatim order. Tinker around with it, further suggest things, &/c, and we can implement it later. Dysprosia 14:13, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Template:Lgbt -IOH|taq

May I point to that page, or rather its discussion page again? Because somehow that box gets thrown into articles, but nobody seems to be willing to talk about it. And talking about it is definitely necessary! -- AlexR 08:43, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Sonjaa's last edit 2 queer used to mean "gay men"? 3 A little cumbersome .. 4 Non-homosexual usage 5 What about people who prefer solitary masturbation to sex with a partner? 6 Usage in Ireland 7 Incorrect Butler-quotation 7.1 Bibliography 7.2 Sources 8 Origins of the modern meaning 9 "or of any other atypical sexuality," 10 Category:Pejorative terms for people, Yes or No? 11 Tecoate's last edit

[edit] Sonjaa's last edit

I don't object to it because "meaning" is better than "signifying" here, but is there some sort of rule about using simpler language? Exploding Boy 10:30, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, AFAIK; it's just good style. Montrealais

Good style is using the best word for what you want to convey, not oversimplifying. Exploding Boy 00:06, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] queer used to mean "gay men"?

Excellent article, but I wonder if the last paragraph of the main text is accurate: "historically, (queer) was an epithet for gay men"?

In fact even the word gay was used (pre-stonewall) to cover much the same ground of non-normative gender and sex behaviours. Effeminate men, cross-dressers and transpeople may have been the ones most targetted with the words "queer" and "gay", thus making it perhaps even more of an issue of gender than of sexuality, although of course the two have often been conflated. Post gay-lib, the meaning of the term "gay" has been narrowed to cover just homosexual men (and women).

I propose to alter the sentence to read: "Historically, the term (queer) was often used as an epithet for effeminate and homosexual men".

what do others think?

it may require a more major re-wording of the last paragraph.

Good point. Please have at it. - Montréalais 17:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A little cumbersome ..

I find reading this article to be a little cumbersome. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't flow very well, and the origin and history sections are somewhat redundant. I would start off with a clear discussion of the original usage of queer (strange), to it's usage as a slur against LGBT people, then finally it's adoption by the LGBT community. The article seems to really skimp on the first two points, there.

Must say that in re-reading the article I don't find it cumbersome or confusing. It seems very straight-forward (pardon the expression). But of course, to some degree this is a matter of personal aesthetic. Jliberty 00:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Much of the first section seems to deal with queer theory, not queerness as the word is most generally used. Perhaps it should be moved to queer theory. -- Montrealais

It's cumbersome. The academic vocabulary (non-heteronormative, different nomination, posit, etc.) and the construction of entire paragraphs out of footnoted quotes contribute to that. I feel like I'm reading an early draft of someone's master's thesis in Queer Studies. It's also a bit lacking in multiple perspectives. When the "origin" section jumped from its Germanic etymology right to the term's "emergence" in 1989, I nearly dropped my sandwich. The use of "queer" as an epithet or for self-deprecation isn't an historical footnote; it's a living, breathing aspect of the term, and the post-modern usage makes no sense without that understanding. Furthermore, there's some definite redundancies. I'm trying to correct some of this. Tverbeek 14:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-homosexual usage

I think there should be more in this article to state that in some parts of the English world, its use for primarily "homosexual" is quite recent. For example in the UK, it was used as a near synonym for "odd" and "strange" up until at least the 1960s. The Carry On films did camp it up with the line "Ooh I do feel queer", with the obviously gay Kenneth Williams, but "queer" was as often used for someone who was eccentric, or perhaps mentally ill, up until very recently, more so than specifically gay. --MacRusgail 14:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about people who prefer solitary masturbation to sex with a partner?

Since I read that there are people who are asexual, I think it is very possible that there might be people who prefer solitary masturbation to sex with a partner. If so, they might also be under the unifying sociopolitical umbrella term "queer" which is used for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and also for those who are transgender, transsexual, and/or intersexual. It can also include asexual people, as well as heterosexuals whose sexual preferences or activities place them outside the mainstream (e.g. BDSM practitioners, or polyamorists).

Being German, I don't know if there is an English word for people who prefer solitary masturbation. Irene1949

Maybe "autosexual" might be an appropriate word. Irene1949

Oh, just now I have seen that there is already an article about Autosexuality. So I feel entitled to add autosexuals to Queer Irene1949

Maybe it could be Onasexual, from onanism.

Woh, Asexuality isn't the same thing that Autosexuality. They are asexuals who don't masturbate. Maybe even most of them.

[edit] Usage in Ireland

Usage in Ireland is very common and almost never to refer to 'sexual deviance', but to oddness, as in 'well, that's kind of queer'. As you can imagine, the primary word for oddness in Ireland is used quite a lot.

This page is suitable only for Americans. The usage in the rest of the anglosphere is quite mixed between the two, depending upon context.

This needs to be referenced, + disambiguation.

This Amero-centric page must be changed.

Actually, this encyclopedia article isn't about every use of the term queer. For that see the dictionary Wiktionary. Hyacinth 23:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Butler-quotation

The quotation in the article attributed to Judith Butler (1993) P. 226 is incorrect. No such passage exist on P. 226 in Butler (1993) and I've been unable to locate the passage anywhere else within the same work.

Would the person who originally entered the quote please revise this?

First, Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks!

According to academic and feminist theorist Judith Butler (1993):

'This appropriation of the word, and its transformation from an insult used by somebody outside the community to a neutral term used by those inside the community can be seen as similar to the metamorphosis of the word "nigger" and its adoption by some in the African American community.'

I added the Butler citation and a quote by her, and not the one above. I'm assuming the page has also sustained other damage and needs to be combed through. Hyacinth 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This information was lost but for the citation which was then applied to some made up quote:

"The term 'queer' itself, as positive nomination rather than hurtful slur" dates from 1990 (Thomas 2000 and Berlant and Warner 1995) and was popularized by the activist group Queer Nation. The term was then used by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1991) in her Epistemology of the Closet and broadened to include contexts, nuances, connections, and potentials in addition to self-identities (Gantz 2000). According to Judith Butler (1993), "'Queer' derives its force precisely through the repeated invocation by which it has become linked to accusation, pathologization, insult. This is an invocation by which a social bond among homophobic communities is formed through time. The interpellation echoes past interpellations, and binds the speakers, as if they spoke in unison across time. In this sense, it is always an imaginary chorus that taunts 'queer'".

and

Andrew Parker (1994), among others, defines queer as, "a non-gender-specific rubric that defines itself diacritically not against heterosexuality but against the normative," while Michael Warner (1993) defines queer as "resistance to regimes of the normal." ....However, Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner (1995) suggest that participation in "queer publics," is, "more a matter of aspiration than it is the expression of an identity or a history," though this may say more about the possiblity or impossiblity of subverting the normative.

and

Leo Bersani (1995) argues against definitions of queer, specifically Warner's, that put "all resisters in the same queer bag--a universalizing move I appreciate but that fails to specify the sexual distinctiveness of the resistance. I find this particularly unfortunate since queer theorists protest, albeit ambiguously, against the exclusion of the sexual from the political."

and

[edit] Bibliography

• Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky (1991). Epistemology of the Closet.
• Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories (1991)
• Butler, Judith (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", p.226. New York: Routledge.
• Warner, Michael ed. (1993). Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

[edit] Sources

• Thomas, Calvin, ed. (2000). "Introduction: Identification, Appropriation, Proliferation", Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0252068130.
  • Parker, Andrew (Fall 1994). "Foucault's Tongues", Mediations 18:2: 80.
  • Berlant, Lauren and Warner, Michael (May 1995). "What Does Queer Theory Teach Us about X?" PMLA 110:3:343.
  • Warner, Michael (1993). "Introduction", Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, p.xxvii. Ed. Michael Warner. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Leo Bersani (1995). Homos. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  • Butler, Judith (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", p.226. New York: Routledge.
  • Gantz, Katherine (2000). "Not That There's Anything Wrong with That: Reading the Queer in Seinfeld", Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality. Ed. Calvin Thomas. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0252068130.

Hyacinth 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the modern meaning

>its current usage dates back to the early 20th century, when homosexual men in the New York urban and suburban areas began using it to describe themselves and their subculture.[...] the term was meant as a "code word" to hide them from the so-called 'straight world'.<

Does anyone have a source on this? The dating seems more or less right (though see below), but I'm really not sure that it began as a code word. Bruce Rodgers's The Queens' Vernacular (1972, London: Blond and Briggs) lists it as 'pejorative heterosexual slang' and Mark Morton's Dirty Words (2005, London: Atlantic Books) claims that though it 'had been applied to homosexual men since the 1920s' (322) it had still not been reclaimed by the early 1980s. I've also failed to find any evidence on where it emerged - it's certainly been in use on both sides of the Atlantic for a good long while. Moreover, the article goes on to claim that the modern sense was in use in Britain at the end of the nineteenth century (at least by the Marquess of Queensbury) and that the meaning was generally pejorative, even among gay people themselves. As most sources seem to agree on an origin in the early 20th century (see also www.etymonline.com), that's presumably when its use became reasonably widespread, but all the evidence I can find suggests that it was a straight word before it was a gay one.

Any thoughts or sources?

Garik 12:14, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Well, as no source has been given and the claim is at odds not only with other sources, but with the rest if the article, I've edited it to make it rather more tentative. Garik 12:14, 12 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] "or of any other atypical sexuality,"

I erroniously suggested that asexuality wasn't queer. In correcting me, another editor said that "Queer is an *inclusive* term that includes zoosexuality and any other non-heteronormative orientation." How inclusive are we really talking about? And what about necrophilia? Well necro's not hurting anybody, so maybe so, but pedophilia? Biastophilia? Is there any boundary? And if not, this is pretty hard to believe, so some citations are in order. — coelacan talk — 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Pejorative terms for people, Yes or No?

The word is sometimes used as a pejorative term, but I don't know if it (the category) would fit after reading the article. Crumbsucker 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tecoate's last edit

I think there's something wrong with adding the phrase "straight(non-conformist) homosexuals" for 2 reasons -- first I'm not sure what "straight homosexual" means (is it the same as "straight acting"?)-- but also, I think this might contradict something earlier in the paragraph that says that to be queer is to be against heteronormativity...scotteaux 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's actually sort of the point - that there's a distinction between going along with heteronormative structures (marriage, belief in strict divisions between sexes) and preferring men or women. Ah. I see what you mean though - it should say 'conformist' not 'non-conformist'. Basically the theory is that there can be 'straight' homosexuals who buy into heteronormative structures and try and emulate them, and 'queer' heterosexuals who resist the labelling and heteronormative structures. I can find some references if you'd like... There's a reference here: http://www.newstatesman.com/200002140012 Tom Coates 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that I understand what you mean -- but I still think there might be something contradictory in this paragraph, which says in an early sentence that (1) queers are against heteronormativity and at the end that (2) you can be queer and embrace a straight/conformist model.scotteaux 13:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - now I think you're misunderstanding. Because there's a distinction between being homosexual and being queer. The paragraph we're looking at talks about how one use of 'queer' is to indicate a break with heteronormativity specifically in terms of being 'outside the bounds of normal society'. It later states, "In this context "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT". The argument is that while one use of the term 'queer' is to be a reclaimed synonym for homosexual, another use is as a declaration that standard sexual categorisations and the life patterns and stereotyping associated with them do not apply to you. One group of people use it to mean 'gay' and another use it to mean 'defying conventional sexual categorisation'.

Under this latter circumstance, some queer theories have described the possibility of 'queer heterosexuals' - ie. people who confound easy categorisation, defy heteronormativity and yet sleep primarily with people of the opposite sex. Similarly the idea of 'straight homosexuals' would refer to people who primarily had sex with members of their own gender but otherwised tried to minimise their difference from straight people.

Another way to think about it is that 'straight homosexuals' would work for assimiliation into a culture created primarily for heterosexuals and would minimise their differences from heterosexuals to do so, whereas 'queer heterosexuals' would fight to open up that culture so that it was natively attractive and suited to people of various sexualities, freeing heterosexuals from the dogmatic enforcement of traditional ideologies and structures in the process. Does that make more sense? Tom Coates

I understand that there is a difference between being homosexual and being queer. I’m just saying that I think that there’s a problem if the definition queer means being against heteronormativity unless you are gay (the case of the straight-acting, conformist homosexual).

No, heteronormativity does not mean just being “outside the bounds of normal society” (which would be the case for the straight-acting homosexual) – HETEROnormative describes an imitation of the model heterosexual couple. In fact, your example of the straight-acting homosexual is precisely what the term heteronormative refers to.

So, we cannot say that queer is to be against heternormativity – except when you happen to be homosexual and heteronormative. This doesn’t make sense.

I’m not sure how we want to define queer here, but we shouldn’t contradict ourselves. Either we should get rid of the idea that to be queer means to be against heteronormativity (perhaps we should say that being queer just means being against normalcy?) OR we need to get rid of the statement that says that the homosexual who embraces a heteronormative ideal is somehow queer.

I’ve copied this conversation over to the queer discussion page, because I think that other folks might be interested in participating.

Thanks for your patience with all this! I do appreciate all the time and energy you’ve put into this!scotteaux 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)