PSA: Queer

[rm]

(This is an outgrowth of a comment thread I'm having with someone in their journal. If that someone is you, no worries, we're cool).

Queer (as an adjective, we will not be using the noun here) is not inherently synonymous with gay and lesbian or LGBT.¹

Many LGBT people do not like or choose to use queer and/or feel it to represent something additional or instead of gay and lesbian or LGBT.

Because queer was originally a slur and not all LGBT people like to use it,² it's generally best that straight people don't use the word unless talking about people and groups that self-identify as queer.

Queer can be considered a non-assimilationist word. Some LGBT people who are not interested in getting equal rights by proving we're just like straight people prefer the term. (This is like when I rant about how "I'm queer and you can tell and I like it that way.")

Some non-trans people who are gender non-conforming use the term or variations there of (i.e., genderqueer).

Some trans people who are additionally not straight use the term as a shorthand way of encompassing multiple identities.

Some people who would traditionally be called "bisexual" use the term to avoid the reinforcement of a binary gender dichotomy.

Some people prefer queer because it removes the separation between men and women in the LGBT community, breaks down barriers between bisexual and other orientation identities, and can be more inclusive of the T part of the LGBT (which often gets pushed aside, because oppressed groups can be crappy to each other too).

Others like it because it's only one syllable.

Additionally queer is sometimes used to encompass kink, polyamorous and other non-traditional relationship styles in a way that may or may not be related to LGBT individuals depending on the community.³

As usual, I don't speak for all LGBT or queer people, just myself and my experience of our communities. If you have questions or more to add, consider the comments a free for all. I'm particularly interested in other people's sense and connotations for the word as ongoing discussion in the original thread is revealing that they are highly varied.

---

¹ A commenter reminds me that LGBT is just not enough these days, nor is LGBTQ, which you'll also often see. The full acronym these days often includes not just LGBT, but Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual and more.
² It's also just been brought to my attention that age may be a factor in how one reacts to queer so this PSA might seem more or less peculiar to you depending on your age.
³ Please see comments for additional discussion of this as there is disagreement on this one. It is problematic for many, and I tend to agree, although the arguments for its inclusion in queer also make a lot of sense.

ETA: Please read the comments. This is such an awesome display of diverse identities, respectful discussion about fraught issues and random people making friends I can't quite get over it. I am loving the LJ today.

Comments

[rm.livejournal.com]

Does queer studies identify people who do not self-identify as queer as queer in its texts or is it an umbrella term that then covers people with a range of identities that includes, but is not limited to, queer?

(I can't believe I don't know this).

[jgcr.livejournal.com]

AFAIK (and I'm not a queer studies expert) it can be used in both of those ways, and also, interestingly, to talk about *texts* that are queer is some way that is not limited to the people who are in the text or authored the text.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Right, I'm used to it in terms of queer texts or things like "queering the villain," but I have to say I have a certain discomfort with academia choosing to define people who would not self-identify as queer (because that word was a weapon) as so. As it's still a loaded word, I think it's potentially disrespectful and harmful.

And I say that as someone who plays about in academia and self-identifies as queer.

[jgcr.livejournal.com]

That makes sense. I guess most of what I've read (due to my interests) is about things written so long ago that *none* of our modern conceptions apply neatly, and academics are usually pretty clear about that. (E.g. Shakespeare, Spenser, etc.)

I can see that it would be more of an issue with more recent (or even more so, contemporary) authors.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Yeah. It doesn't bother me with with stuff like that you mention. But let's say we were talking about an author from the 1950s, now deceased. Sure, said author isn't alive to be uncomfortable, but knowing the word would have been assaultive at the time, it feels sketchy to me.

[emily-shore.livejournal.com]

[Tangential]: I wouldn't use the term for someone from that period who hadn't identified that way, but I've been interested to note that there were people in that period who did self-describe as queer without the implication that they were talking themselves down by doing so.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Yup, I've seen that too (and thanks for pointing it out, since the discussion about The Catch Trap elsewhere in these comments focused on the opposite.

[kalichan.livejournal.com]

Coming to this late, but there's a discussion about The Catch Trap? !!!! I love that novel!!

re: queer studies... there's also the trope of academics who study being "differently" orientated... for instance Eve Sedgwick, pioneer of the field was married to a gay man... and her sexuality seemed very caught up with gay men (hence "Between Men") etc. etc.

[rm.livejournal.com]

http://rm.livejournal.com/1872647.html?thread=20392711#t20392711

[kalichan.livejournal.com]

Grazie! IIRC tho, it was mostly used as a noun in that book... "Sure, I'm a queer," Tommy said bitterly, "but that doesn't mean I have to act like that..."

[rm.livejournal.com]

Good point, and the noun version of things is always sketchier.

[weirdquark]

And possibly this is why it weirded me out when I first heard people say "I'm a gay."

[rm.livejournal.com]

That is like, the most ungrammatical horror to me, btw. I had meant to respond to that. Unless you're on My Life on the D-List you're not allowed to say that. ;)

[weirdquark]

I thought about asking why they phrased it that way, but I didn't want to pick on the grammar of the queer kids from Texas in what's supposed to be their safe space. Especially when they don't know who the hell I am and whether I'm also queer or a 'well meaning straight ally'.

[ladypeculiar.livejournal.com]

My experience with queer studies (I took several courses in college) has generally been that the largest producers of work within queer studies has been by individuals who self-identify as queer (Pat Califia is widely read, as is Michael Warner, I have a zillion books I can drag out for you), and was often used as a platform to bring artistic works into academic discussion that were often not discussed because of their "queerness" . . . for instance Karen Finley's work is discussed in a queer studies context (though she is straight) because her work often deals with genderfuck and sexual themes that seem to have a place in criticism. Granted, most of the work that I studied was performance-based, but it's a field that encompasses a wide range of topics and subjects. So far every teacher I studied with identified as queer, though that's just an anecdotal observation. :)

[kindkit.livejournal.com]

"Queer" in academia, in my experience (I worked on English Renaissance literature), isn't generally used to describe individual people's identities (except perhaps the academic's own, or those who explicitly self-identify as queer). It's much more common as a way of talking about the relationship of certain kinds of acts, orientations, and identities to a culturally-specified "normality." One driving force behind the use of "queer" is a discomfort with terms like "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" when referring to historical/cultural circumstances in which those identities were not actually available. (Talking about homosexuality in Shakespeare, for example, is a major historical problem, while talking about queerness in Shakespeare is much more viable, and doesn't necessarily just refer to same-sex desire. Personally, when I was doing academic writing and meant same-sex desire and nothing else, I used the term "homoeroticism" because it's more specific.)

In my experience, queer studies scholars tend to avoid labeling the identities of authors or characters. I can talk about the queerness (in terms of class, age, and same-sex-ness) of Antonio's love for Sebastian, but it's pointless to say that Antonio is gay or queer or whatever. It's equally pointless to say that of Shakeapeare himself--there's pervasive homoeroticism in his writing, but we don't know the relationship between his writing and his subjectivity, nor do we know who he had sex with or wanted to have sex with or what he felt about the whole business.

Maybe other academics are using "queer" in a more labeling way, but I haven't seen it. What I have seen happen, although it's much less common now than it was back in the 1970s and 1980s, is the ahistorical labeling of people as "homosexual," "bisexual," "gay," "lesbian," etc.

the ahistorical labeling of people

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

Yes! Pet bee of mine!
Particularly 'Gay.' Gay was something you did, a decision you made, something you acted on.
Particularly, it was deciding not to be ashamed.
Gay meant out, to someone. It wasn't something you could be before it became a public thing, a social movement, a community, a culture.
That said, I'm not all that thrilled about labeling someone 'an homosexual' before that social category existed, either.
To me that's like calling Hiawatha "an early U.S. politician..."!

Re: the ahistorical labeling of people

[kindkit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the term "homosexual" didn't even exist before about 1860, and didn't come into the English language for a bit after that. It does seem pretty clear that there were people before that who did form identities related to their sexual desires (e.g. the "molly" subculture of the 18th century) but "homosexual" is so tightly related to the 19th century medicalization of sexual categories that I don't think it's any more appropriate for earlier periods than "gay".

[usullusa.livejournal.com]

This.
My limited experience with queer studies has been that people are rarely referred to as queer unless they self-identify as such. Queer is usually used to describe queer narratives or experiences, as in narratives that are not hetero or gender normative.