11 votes

Nine LGBTQ+ people explain how they love, hate, and understand the word "queer"

11 comments

  1. [4]
    Algernon_Asimov
    Link
    I used to think I hated the word "queer", but I've softened over recent years. I still dislike it, though. "Queer" was not used as an insult towards me. I was much more likely to be called...

    I used to think I hated the word "queer", but I've softened over recent years. I still dislike it, though.

    "Queer" was not used as an insult towards me. I was much more likely to be called "poofter"/"poof", or "gay". There was an occasional "fag" or "faggot" thrown in, but almost never "queer". So, this word doesn't really have any negative emotional baggage for me. It doesn't need reclaiming because it was never hurled at me in hatred.

    Interestingly, because "queer" was not really used as a sexuality/gender-related insult in my milieu, and because I've read a few old books and watched some old movies where "queer" was used in its earlier meaning of "strange or odd (with overtones of wrongness)", that's the meaning I most associate with this word. For many years, whenever someone used "queer", I went first to "strangely or oddly wrong" as their meaning, and then had to remind myself that that's not what people use it for these days. In this context, I really don't relate to it: I'm not wrong in any way.

    So, I don't connect to "queer" in any way whatsoever. It has no personal resonance for me, good or bad.

    My problem with "queer" is repeatedly mentioned by the people in this article:


    I appreciate “queer” specifically because it has always carried a sense of undefined abstractness.


    As a synonym for “not straight,” “queer” is a great umbrella word for a wide variety of people across a spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities.


    the term being “reclaimed” (acquired? co-opted? expanded?) by younger generations to mean anything they want it to mean.


    “queer” encompasses any non-cisgender, non-heterosexual identity, relationship, behavior, or desire.


    It's vague, it's non-specific, and it's ultimately non-descriptive.

    "Queer" is basically a synonym for "not straight and/or not cisgender". However, describing someone as "not straight and/or not cisgender" is about as useful as describing a person as "not American and/or not Caucasian", or describing an animal as "not a mammal and/or not warm-blooded". That tells you what they're not, but it doesn't tell you what they are. Is that non-American non-Caucasian person Chinese, Pakistani, Moroccan, Inuit, Polynesian, Nigerian...? Is that not-mammal and/or not warm-blooded animal a bird, a fish, a reptile, an amphibian, an insect...? Describing someone by what they're not is simply not useful.

    As an all-encompassing umbrella term, "queer" can work. It includes all people who are not straight and/or not cisgender. As lots of people (even I) will admit, it's simpler than the ever-increasing alphabet soup of "LGBTIQA+etc". A queer film festival, a queer dance party, a queer health organisation - these are useful labels. They're inclusive and they're informative.

    However, as a term for a specific person, "queer" has very little utility. I don't object to other people using it for themselves, but I will never use it for me. And, those people who do want to tell me they're queer should appreciate that this tells me very little about them.

    10 votes
    1. [4]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [3]
        Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        Both. And that's quite confusing. I'm not against using "queer" as a unifying label, to bring together different groups of people with shared interests, to fight for similar causes. However,...

        Is the term trying to be descriptive, and to give people the language they need to communicate their identity and sense of self? Or is the term trying to be unifying, to prevent groups with shared interests from splintering/in-fighting, so that they can come together and fight for similar causes?

        Both. And that's quite confusing.

        I'm not against using "queer" as a unifying label, to bring together different groups of people with shared interests, to fight for similar causes.

        However, because it's a unifying label, it lacks specificity and descriptiveness. If I were to tell you I'm "queer", what does that tell you about my background? And how does my background overlap with yours? The lives of transgender men are very different to the lives of gay men. The lives of intersex people are very different to the lives of bisexual women. Knowing that someone is "queer" doesn't really tell you much about their personal experiences. To awkwardly use a sporting metaphor: "queer" tells you that someone is on your team, but it doesn't tell you what position they play on that team (forward, defence, goal-shooter, catcher, batter, wing, etc).

        To me, "queer" is like a badge

        I don't have that badge. I've only got a "gay card". Can you still feel comfortable with someone who's gay but not queer?

        1. [3]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [2]
            Algernon_Asimov
            Link Parent
            "Baseball player" is better than "queer" because it tells you something about the person: they play baseball. That's something concrete and specific I know about that person from that label....

            "Baseball player" is better than "queer" because it tells you something about the person: they play baseball. That's something concrete and specific I know about that person from that label. However, "queer" doesn't tell me anything about a person except that they're not straight and/or not cisgender. It's like describing someone as "not a football player".

            1 vote
            1. [2]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. Algernon_Asimov
                Link Parent
                Whereas it's not sufficiently specific for me, because I know just how much variation and difference is hidden by that all-inclusive label of "queer".

                Saying that you aren't cishet is sufficiently specific for me because of just how big a portion of people it excludes.

                Whereas it's not sufficiently specific for me, because I know just how much variation and difference is hidden by that all-inclusive label of "queer".

  2. [6]
    Whom
    Link
    Queer is useful for me for personal reasons, I find it to be much more comfortable and I'm annoyed by any variation of the acronym (I've been trying to keep myself from starting some shit about...

    Queer is useful for me for personal reasons, I find it to be much more comfortable and I'm annoyed by any variation of the acronym (I've been trying to keep myself from starting some shit about the title of this group, if I'm honest).

    Beyond that, for me it's a political thing. I don't like liberal identity politics and I desperately want to break free from them. If we could have nothing and just call ourselves whatever we want, I'd be totally down. However, I recognize a need for something to group around for political and social action...it's too idealistic and disconnected from the reality of our situations to not have something to group around. "Queer" accomplishes this best by grouping based on affinity through similar difference and similar discrimination, the things that are important for our advocacy politically and socially. An ever-growing list of identities does not.

    I don't tell other people what to use, but I very much hope we continue in the direction of queer becoming more dominant.

    5 votes
    1. [5]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      I have noticed this among self-identified queer people. There seems to be a correlation between people who prefer the self-label "queer" and people who feel political about their sexuality and/or...

      Beyond that, for me it's a political thing.

      I have noticed this among self-identified queer people. There seems to be a correlation between people who prefer the self-label "queer" and people who feel political about their sexuality and/or gender. To me, being gay is just part of who I am, like being white and being male. But people who call themselves "queer" seem to have a different perception of what their sexuality and/or gender means to them. I'm reminded of a saying that was popular during the Gay Liberation movement of the 1970s (which was before my time): "being gay is a political act". I don't feel political about being gay, but people seem to feel political about being queer.

      I've been trying to keep myself from starting some shit about the title of this group, if I'm honest

      I can understand that. I've seen a couple of people mention that, it should be something like ~lgbti or ~lgbtq or ~lgbtiq (etc). That said, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable about a group called ~queer. That's just... not me.

      I like the phrase "rainbow community" which I've seen and heard occasionally. I wonder if we should follow the lead of the /r/ainbow subreddit on Reddit and call this group ~rainbow.

      4 votes
      1. [4]
        Whom
        Link Parent
        I would at least prefer ~rainbow to what we have now...I can see someone claiming that it's a weak choice to avoid one of the more "serious" ones, but I don't mind that. It'd just put me a bit...

        I would at least prefer ~rainbow to what we have now...I can see someone claiming that it's a weak choice to avoid one of the more "serious" ones, but I don't mind that. It'd just put me a bit more at ease. Something like it would probably be my choice if I wanted to avoid starting a bunch of drama about it, and I get why that might be desirable.

        I like extended versions of "lgbt" significantly less but it's also still better than what we've got.

        4 votes
        1. [3]
          Deimos
          Link Parent
          Happy to change it to anything else. We should probably have a discussion separately about that though. (@Algernon_Asimov)

          Happy to change it to anything else. We should probably have a discussion separately about that though. (@Algernon_Asimov)

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            Algernon_Asimov
            Link Parent
            I had considered asking you if you were open to changing the name of this group. If you were open to it, I would then post here asking for people's suggestions and preferences, and see if we can...

            I had considered asking you if you were open to changing the name of this group. If you were open to it, I would then post here asking for people's suggestions and preferences, and see if we can come up with a name that most people are happy with. But I figured it wasn't important enough to bother you about with.

            Should I proceed?

            3 votes
            1. Deimos
              Link Parent
              Sure, it's very easy for me to do, so if people would prefer something else it's really no trouble to change it.

              Sure, it's very easy for me to do, so if people would prefer something else it's really no trouble to change it.

  3. kfwyre
    Link
    I'm someone who very much appreciates the term, and that's coming from someone who had it used against them as a slur quite frequently growing up. I wrote at length about it here.

    I'm someone who very much appreciates the term, and that's coming from someone who had it used against them as a slur quite frequently growing up. I wrote at length about it here.

    3 votes