Who is Queer?

[Equinoxe]

Don't worry about it. the two things you spoke to, nonconsensual paraphilias and the GLBT community isolating itself, you interpreted correctly and I agree with your elaborations.

Well then, that is definitely a good thing for me.

 

[Queersetti]

I don't understand why being ambiguous is a good thing. The more slippery and unknowable something is, the less apt we are to accept it. That's human nature. Fear of the unknown.

Now I am getting confused as to where you are on this issue.

Didn't you just say a few posts ago that "shades of gray" were more inclusive?

 

[Equinoxe]

Obviously, I am one of those who believes in claiming the word and making it mean what we want it to mean. I find it a powerful symbolic victory to do so. It say that *I* define who I am, whether society likes it or not.

I am curious as to why you feel that claiming and using the word furthers isolation. I hope you will expand on that thought.

In a way I agree with you. There is definitely something to be said for that, but it's not necessarily a good thing. For instance when it creates confusion, as it does in this particular case.

I don't think that in and of itself self-defining furthers isolation, indeed it is empowering. Again, however, it can be used, and in this case I think often is used to falsely set things apart. Acknowledging difference is definitely a good idea, but at the same time you can be contriving the difference as well. I'm all for self-empowerment, I'm just skeptical sometimes of attempts to self-empower. It just seems to me that as much as people use it to say "This is who we are" (definitely a good thing), they use it to say "We're not you." Which is not inherently bad, but people often have a hard time differentiating between "different" and "inferior."

Or something.

 

[John Doe]

Now I am getting confused as to where you are on this issue.

Didn't you just say a few posts ago that "shades of gray" were more inclusive?

Yes, shades of grey that are called by thier names, not lumped together and called black.

Nuance and gradation is not ambiguity.

 

[Equinoxe]

Personally, I've never viewed being different from the expected or what some consider "normal" as being a bad thing. Some of the most beautiful things in the world are odd, eccentric, or unconventional. Granted, some have attached offensive meanings to the word. Does that mean the meanings that are not negative/offensive are no longer valid?

There are bad connotations associated with being called an "American" in many places in the world. Those people have attached their own negative connotations to the word. Should the citizens of the US no longer use that to identify themselves with? I don't think so.

I agree with you that different is not bad (and indeed can be quite good), but I think "queasy," "fake," and "questionable" are negative terms (as you said). Furthermore, I don't think the other meanings are "non-negative" as while some people do appreciate weirdness, "strange" and "weird" do not have a positive connotation. They have, at best, a neutral connotation.

No, of course they should not (they do sometimes, hence the old joke about learning to pretend to be Canadian everytime you go oversees ), but that's different. Americans are Americans because they are from the US and feel some attachment to the country (generally speaking). Queers are queers because straight people decided they are different and thus inferior (although more and more that's no longer the case).

I guess I just think that we should define ourselves instead of playing this word Aikido.

And don't get me started on what's wrong with the word "lesbian."

 

[Queersetti]

In a way I agree with you. There is definitely something to be said for that, but it's not necessarily a good thing. For instance when it creates confusion, as it does in this particular case.

I don't think that in and of itself self-defining furthers isolation, indeed it is empowering. Again, however, it can be used, and in this case I think often is used to falsely set things apart. Acknowledging difference is definitely a good idea, but at the same time you can be contriving the difference as well. I'm all for self-empowerment, I'm just skeptical sometimes of attempts to self-empower. It just seems to me that as much as people use it to say "This is who we are" (definitely a good thing), they use it to say "We're not you." Which is not inherently bad, but people often have a hard time differentiating between "different" and "inferior."

Or something.

But, I'm not them. I am different. Why should I not empower myself?

 

[Queersetti]

Yes, shades of grey that are called by thier names, not lumped together and called black.

Nuance and gradation is not ambiguity.

And shades of queer are called gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.

 

[Equinoxe]

But, I'm not them. I am different. Why should I not empower myself?

Oh damn. That's not what I meant at all. I agree with that. Now I have to figure out why that didn't come across in what I said, you bastard.

 

[John Doe]

And shades of queer are called gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.

Those are subsets of the GLBTM.I.C-K.E.Y. M.O.U.S.E. category. What I'm talking about are numerous ategories as they would appear in the big picture or to the mainstream, not seperate groups as they are only recognized by those who are variously grey.

 

[Equinoxe]

Anyway, looking at it, I think the point I'm unsuccessfully trying to make is that people should acknowledge differences and not make them. And I think sometimes we cross the line and make the differences. Or sometimes they are made by the larger society.

I think I may be arguing a point that's tangentially related because it's something that annoys me.

 

[sexy-girl]

You should tell them that then, because I don't think most of them know that.

this is what happens when you go about purposely changing the meaning of a word over mere months or weeks. People don't know what the hell you're talking about anymore.

as never said there is quite a few people into bdsm who would identify themselves as queer ... i don't think they are always gay or bi either


theres probably some old english librarian book collectors that would say they were a bit queer

 

[Queersetti]

Those are subsets of the GLBTM.I.C-K.E.Y. M.O.U.S.E. category. What I'm talking about are numerous ategories as they would appear in the big picture or to the mainstream, not seperate groups as they are only recognized by those who are variously grey.

Are you saying that you think mainstream society doesn't recognize that there is a difference between gay and bisexual?

 

[John Doe]

as never said there is quite a few people into bdsm who would identify themselves as queer ... i don't think they are always gay or bi either


theres probably some old english librarian book collectors that would say they were a bit queer

People who are in the BDSM scene aren't striaght, they're into BDSM.

 

[Equinoxe]

Are you saying that you think mainstream society doesn't recognize that there is a difference between gay and bisexual?

Often times they don't. The term "lesbian" is freely applied to anything that involves women touching each other basically and in many cases any man who engages in sexual activity with another man is somehow irredeemably gay.

 

[John Doe]

Are you saying that you think mainstream society doesn't recognize that there is a difference between gay and bisexual?

For the most part, no they don't. Or at least they're treated practically the same (badly). I'm also saying that people don't recognize a difference in validity between zoophilia and whipping someone's ass.

 

[Queersetti]

Anyway, looking at it, I think the point I'm unsuccessfully trying to make is that people should acknowledge differences and not make them. And I think sometimes we cross the line and make the differences. Or sometimes they are made by the larger society.

I think I may be arguing a point that's tangentially related because it's something that annoys me.

This is what I don't get. Why shouldn't we celebrate what is different about us?

I don't want to conform to any sort of social mainstream. I am glad that I am not like "everybody else".

 

[Equinoxe]

This is what I don't get. Why shouldn't we celebrate what is different about us?

I don't want to conform to any sort of social mainstream. I am glad that I am not like "everybody else".

I'm apparently not very good at arguing today (well, I just got up, so I don't know). I actually agree with you for the most part (although I do think too much can be made of being different). I think there's a subtle variation that one of us is missing (and I don't know which one of us it is).

 

[Frimost]

My Aunt uses to word "queer" to mean: unusual, strange, stupid, out of the ordinary, playfully dumb, ignorant, rude, all kinds of things other than gay apparently.

 

[Pookie]

I agree with you that different is not bad (and indeed can be quite good), but I think "queasy," "fake," and "questionable" are negative terms (as you said). Furthermore, I don't think the other meanings are "non-negative" as while some people do appreciate weirdness, "strange" and "weird" do not have a positive connotation. They have, at best, a neutral connotation.

"Wierd" is defined as "strikingly odd or unusual; "some trick of the moonlight; some weird effect of shadow"- Bram Stoker." Also, "strange" is defined as "being definitely out of the ordinary and unexpected; slightly odd or even a bit weird; "a strange exaltation that was indefinable"; "a strange fantastical mind"; "what a strange sense of humor she has"." Again, I've never automatically viewed being odd, out of the ordinary, unexpected, or different as being a negative thing. Some things people define as "normal" or "ordinary" are very negative things to me.

The definitions I used came from - www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

No, of course they should not (they do sometimes, hence the old joke about learning to pretend to be Canadian everytime you go oversees ), but that's different. Americans are Americans because they are from the US and feel some attachment to the country (generally speaking). Queers are queers because straight people decided they are different and thus inferior (although more and more that's no longer the case).

I guess I just think that we should define ourselves instead of playing this word Aikido.

And don't get me started on what's wrong with the word "lesbian."

I don't see the word queer as meaning inferior. The definitions I'm referring to don't imply inferiority, just difference. What others decide to add to the existing definitions as a negative meaning is out of my control. Again, it doesn't invalidate the meanings that are not negative. I refuse to let others dictate which meanings of words are valid or invalid based on some group's view.

 

[Queersetti]

Often times they don't. The term "lesbian" is freely applied to anything that involves women touching each other basically and in many cases any man who engages in sexual activity with another man is somehow irredeemably gay.

That's a good point (And Stup makes it as well).

But, if their lack of understanding is a bad thing, why isn't it a positive thing for us to strive to define ourselves?

 

[sexy-girl]

People who are in the BDSM scene aren't striaght, they're into BDSM.

but some of them have different sexuality gay bi or straight

 

[Equinoxe]

"Wierd" is defined as "strikingly odd or unusual; "some trick of the moonlight; some weird effect of shadow"- Bram Stoker." Also, "strange" is defined as "being definitely out of the ordinary and unexpected; slightly odd or even a bit weird; "a strange exaltation that was indefinable"; "a strange fantastical mind"; "what a strange sense of humor she has"." Again, I've never automatically viewed being odd, out of the ordinary, unexpected, or different as being a negative thing. Some things people define as "normal" or "ordinary" are very negative things to me.

The definitions I used came from - www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn



I don't see the word queer as meaning inferior. The definitions I'm referring to don't imply inferiority, just difference. What others decide to add to the existing definitions as a negative meaning is out of my control. Again, it doesn't invalidate the meanings that are not negative. I refuse to let others dictate which meanings of words are valid or invalid based on some group's view.

There's definitely something to be said for that and as I said a part of me definitely wants to agree with you. But as I said, based upon the whole of the definition from a societal perspective (which is perhaps foolish on my part anyhow) the word queer has a neutral-to-negative connotation and I think any label you grant to yourself has a certain public relations function. Hence I guess I would prefer, when labelling a group as a whole, to use a term that was not questionable and then leave the individualism to the individuals.

Perhaps I'm just being to accomodating to society as whole though.

 

[Queersetti]

I don't see the word queer as meaning inferior. The definitions I'm referring to don't imply inferiority, just difference. What others decide to add to the existing definitions as a negative meaning is out of my control. Again, it doesn't invalidate the meanings that are not negative. I refuse to let others dictate which meanings of words are valid or invalid based on some group's view.

I wonder; now that many young people use the word "gay" to mean something stupid or undesirable, would those who object to "queer" counsel that we abandon it as well?

 

[John Doe]

but some of them have different sexuality gay bi or straight

But they're not maisntream. They're 'alternate lifestle' i think is the correct term.

 

[Equinoxe]

That's a good point (And Stup makes it as well).

But, if their lack of understanding is a bad thing, why isn't it a positive thing for us to strive to define ourselves?

We should define ourselves. But we should define ourselves based upon the naturally (for lack of a better word) occurring differences that exist. Instead of defining ourselves in opposition to straight people. Perhaps the difference is semantic though. I'm prone to that.