The word "queer" has become more popular as an identity and simply as terminology for people who identify as LGBT. People use it in a variety of ways. What do YOU think queer is? What does it mean to you? Do you like that word, that identity? Is it a positive or negative term and/or identity for the movement?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog where we can share our experiences being queer. It is a chance for us to express the diversity within the LGBTQIQ communities by sharing our own stories. If you would like to add your story please email it to closetsnomore@gmail.com
About Me
- ClosetsNoMore
- Your Hometown, Everywhere
- This is a blog where we can share our experiences of being LGBTQIQ people. Though we are all often lumped into one group, we know that our stories and experiences are diverse. We come from different races, classes, religious and backgrounds; we experience, express, transgress and embody a variety of sexes, genders; we have different experiences and opinions. This blog is a collection of some of our stories. To whoever is reading this, just know-You are not alone.
Labels
- 1970's (1)
- 2000's (3)
- Christian (6)
- civil union (1)
- Comic (2)
- coming out (5)
- Day of Silence (1)
- Discussion (4)
- election (2)
- LGBT rights/inclusion (1)
- marriage (1)
- Performance Art (1)
- politics (2)
- Queer (1)
- Terminology (1)
Posts
20 comments:
Queer was a weird word for me, for a long time. But the more I lived, the more I realized that it is a good word for someone like me, who maybe doesn't fit a gender-expression label and who has a fluid sexuality. Am I butch or femme? Lesbian or bisexual? Not really any of those things. So "queer" for me is like checking the "other" box. Also like negating the power of those other labels. I like it.
My ideas about the term "queer" have shifted recently.
I used to like the word queer when I was trying to figure out "what" I was because I have not had an experience of a static or consistent sexuality. I don't have memories as a child knowing I was different. I was in my early 20's when I realized that I could be attracted to women (and was in love with one particular woman). Was I bi? Lesbian? Was my understanding of my orientation going to continue to change? Queer fit because I didn't have to choose I box. I was allowed to be in the land of exploration. So I agree with Quaking Aspen, I liked checking the "other" box.
Though I still have much of the same feelings and opinions as before things have shifted. I recently asked myself--Why should my sexuality be defined by another person's genitalia and/or gender/sex identity? I don't think it should. What happens if that person is gender queer? Trans? What happens to my identity if the person I am dating transitions to another sex and/or gender? If my identity is based on another person, is his/her identity based on the label I place on myself?
Furthermore, beyond the interdependent implications of labeling, I don't think that my sexuality should be based under someone else's pants. It may go there from time to time :-) but my sexuality is mine. It is much more than just the genitalia of a potential partner. If I simply place my orientation in the folds of another vagina, or along the shaft of a penis, or both, I think it ignores the nuances of gender expression, identity and performance. It also lays the foundation for certain phobic behaviors and beliefs (for example against trans people) and/or lights the fuse for future identity crises.
So I am queer. I use lesbian and bi at times, but try to be a perpetual walking contradicting, box exploding, infuriatingly noncommittal queer.
Or perhaps this is just individualism in its extreme and a denial of our interdependent nature. Who knows....
As Heather Davis says in her article The Difference of Queer:
"Queer politics in its proscriptive form is a politics of difference...It is this refusal of queer culture to draw distinct boundaries around who qualifies and who doesn't that most radically separates it from heterosexual and homosexual culture. Queer politics is not a politics based on who you are, or your similarity to a group, but a politics that uses experiences of oppression and desire as a means of collective political affiliation. Queer is based on a political position which embraces the stigmatized sex, seeks to challenge the privatization and regulation of sex and includes all people who are interested in pursuing this type of politics. It is not a politics of who you are, but of what you do and what you think"(23).
I agree with Davis that queer is an adjective for myself a descriptor for how I avoid social norms even as a self-defined radical femme lesbian. I can be all of those things and do them in a queer way-even with eyeliner. I queer my whiteness by attempting to bring critical race consciousness into my interactions. Queerness is more than just a label for my sexuality it is a means by which I live, it is my politics, but it is also my standard for life.
While often queer is popularized to mean androgynous or trans (in the term "genderqueer") I believe this to be a quite limiting treatment of the word. I think queer is how you act and how you see the world-much more than an expression of gender which, is just another way to force it into the realm of identity and identity politics.
Queer is what I do-not who I am...
Kat,
So then you don't identify as queer, you use it as a verb?
yes, i believe the entire purpose of queer is not try and make it into an identity because it cannot be constrained in that way. I use it as a verb and an adjective to describe the way I do things "queerly" I identify as a white middle class femme bisexual lesbian but I do all of those things queerly and they all reflect and play into my sexuality. I cannot do one of those things without the other they are all contingent on each other. I cannot identify as queer because that would mean limiting the possibilities of what a word like queer can do.
Queer tends to be a blanket term and I don't believe that is its purpose. That just makes it cover all the differences that make the community so neat. it also tends to make the community white, male and middle-class, which I am obviously opposed to. This is why I am really appreciative of the term "quare"from E. Patrick Johnson which problematizes the whiteness implicit in "queer."
I also do not like the popularization that queer means fluidity. I do not believe my sexuality is fluid like it comes and goes or is purely a matter of what I feel like wearing that day. My sexuality is a political statement, my desire a constant site of contention and it is queer because it is not normative not because it is gay. My sexuality isn't based on me being attracted to someone of the same sex but on being attracted to others who are queer. These people tend t have vaginas which, is just fine by me. I am queer despite my sexuality. There are plenty of people out there who are gay (or some variety of that term) and not queer.
I understand how academic this might sound but the people I use are just trying to make sense of their whole experiences which, is what I am trying to do. I feel that this whole queer thing is so loaded but it is really important because it is very pertinent in people's lives. It is just so real right now in my own life also...
Kat, first of all I love this discussion!
1. How is queer a blanket for whiteness? I've never heard that. I don't believe that there is "the community". Though I know we have both used such language and would equally problematize it, couldn't the same be said for lesbian? or even bisexual? (I think "gay" is the easiest word and word to argue makes white and middlesclass).
2. I have had very little academic foundations in queer theory or politics. What little I read at LC is where I have stopped. My definitions and ideas of queer, etc, come from conversations with people and experiences. Doesn't quoting academics and having an academic dialogue about XYZ do the same thing, in terms of blanketing and making it about middles class white men, as the word queer possibly does itself--even if it is used as a blanket statement? I googled the man you quoted about "quare". He is a black perfomace art academic who writes of race and sexuality (among other things). I am no denying the "queer" has racial origins or implications, however I am asking the question about the location of certain dialogues and that locations racial and class implications. In other words. Regardless of the origins of a word, doesn't a words location in academia cause it, perhaps unintentionally or unfortunately, to become laden with white, middleclass appropriation and implication?
3. Sexuality as fluid: I do think that sexuality is fluid. It exists, yes. The fluidity does not qualify that truth (with a small "t"). I think that sexuality is much more than the act of sex, expression of an orientation or identity, and is not only interdependent on other parts of my person but is in fact woven into all parts of who I am (in the same way that being white is woven into my sex acts, orientation, politics, etc) I think that sexuality is fluid because our sex acts, fantasies, self identities, self awareness of being white, class locations, etc change throughout our lifetime. For me to say that my sexuality isn't fluid is for me to think that it is somehow outside of social context, constructedness, and other aspects of who I am. This is not to say that sexuality IS fluid, as in a truth with a capital "t". This is simply how I understand my sexuality and have experienced my sexuality.
4.Queer as adjective or verb: I quite agree. It is queer as a verb or adjective which causes me to use it, loosely, as an identity. Not having one set word which classifies my sexuality is a way for me to queer the idea of identity and orientation. I use bisexual, lesbian, and queer depending on my context and current mood. Sometimes it is laziness, sometimes it is with a desire to queer the understanding of sexuality. It is particularly useful in ways that don't have direct links to my sexuality. "this syllabus is queer" (as MJD said in our first class this semester). There was nothing gay about it, it was in the approach and queering academic structure. By not having one consistent use for the word it keeps the dialogue open and lessens the ability to put a box around the term, its use, or its implications.
THoughts????
queer as a general term and queer theory was something started by white male academics and Judith Butler. The writings done about it tend to be from a white perspective that doesn't take into account issues of queering or "quaring" race and gender and sexuality. This is really problematic for people of color (not that I know personally) but from what I have heard and read from queer/quare academics/people. Queer tends to disregard the intersections and interrelatedness of identity constructions to focus it specifically on sexuality which, is something people of color can never do (and white people can't either they just like to make their whiteness invisible so that it appears as though it has no bearing on anything else in their lives.) Being queer in this sense is a privileged position.
I also think that sometimes when people use the word queer it tends to then substitute for their social position/location. While I do not believe social positions/locations are determinate of behaviors or outcomes I think it is only ethical to locate oneself in the work they are doing whether it be writing academically, community service, politics etc. When you identify as queer without locating yourself you deny that your body is constantly being read by the social world you are in. Again this is extremely problematic for people of color whose bodies are always read as deviant and queer. This is another way queer can be a blanket for whiteness. This is why I feel it is appropriate to both locate myself (where I am coming from, how my body is read both by myself and society) and then to queer even those notions of self.
And of course the whitewashing of language is true for all the other terms which is why I do always locate my social position as a white femme lesbian bisexual-because that means something different then locating myself as a lesbian of color etc. My body is read different, my queerness understood differently because of my whiteness because of my middle class occupancy.
I don't think it is wrong to use academics to make points especially if those academics like E Patrick Johnson and the like are problematizing the word queer, the queer movement, and queer politics. Queer is an academic movement and I think it pays to know the folks who are writing about it. This means however, not only quoting Foucault, and Butler and all the white people out there writing about this stuff. This continues to give the words white middle class implications-not using queer scholars of color who are trying to problematize this very thing (see Bryant Alexander, Bernadette Calafell, D. Soyini Madison)
This isn't to say I don't think personal experience is equally valid it just makes it harder to make counter arguments against. Personal experiences in the ways they are articulated tend to be the opposite of queer "Here is my experience and don't question it because that would mean questioning my whole being, my whole life" and nobody would want to offend anyone else in this way. Personal experience tends to be one thing we in academia and popular culture attempt to solidify and fix as Truth. As a communication scholar ad one very much into the ways we engage in public debates this is extremely problematic. How do we utilize personal experiences in ways that allow them to open up conversations instead of stop them because that is someone's experience THE END. I don't know I am willing to say I don't have a definite answer for this but I think experience can be problematic when it is set up as something fixed without room for debate.
I like to substitute the word contingent for fluidity. By this I think the word fluidity allows my sexuality to be contextual, historical, and political. I just don't like the word fluidity for anything (unwillingness to be categorized and thus unwilling to take a stand) because to me it implies wishy washiness which I am not. I have always had issue with this word because I felt it didn't describe me or my politics well enough.
But I see how your use of the word does somewhat open up the meaning of fluidity. But as most people who know me know I do not like to do anything that other people are enjoying at the moment which, is probably why I am not a big fan of that word. It became popular so it started to give me an icky feeling.
Anyway, I too enjoy this discussion but I wish more folks would join in-hear more opinions, be told I am wrong, Wrong, WRONG!
I've been thinking a lot about the whole queer thing lately and everything Kat has been saying. Here is where I am at this very moment (this may have little to do with what we were actually talking about before, but hey I ramble-sue me).
1. I don't know what other word I would use. Perhaps it is because I am currently living the fuzzy world of feelings and faith but strict identity politics, though they have their place, don't fit me. The only identity that I hold firmly is white and middle class. Everything else, well it just seems to make me miss the faces in the shadows of identity making.
Living in the Fuzzyland means that I see things on a micro level, not a macro. I think kat (correct me if I am wrong) living in the land of political academic rigor, sees the macro.
As soon as I say something firmly, make a firm statement or definition, I immediately think of someone who doesn't agree, doesn't experience that, has a different definition. I think this is a good thing at times but also has its draw backs.
Or perhaps it is my identity as a white privileged person that allows me the privilege of living in Fuzzyland, home of the fat, sheltered, therapist-on-speed-dial, individuals. I have the privilege of having these sorts of identity questions. I have the privilege of saying I don't want to have one set identity politic (save white and middle class). My desire to queer labels is really just an excuse to live in complacency and privilege.
But then again I say, no. I am and am not, at the same time, a lesbian, a bisexual, a Christian, a gender conformist, etc.
2. Besides lesbian and bisexual, which really don't fit, particularly because they are dependent upon a sex/gender binary, I don't think there are any other labels I would use. Pansexual, ambisexual. Those just aren't practical, nor do they really fit either. Perhaps, technically they fit better than lesbian or bisexual, but they don't have the umph behind them.
I don't know.....any thoughts???
Hey, ya'll who are out there reading this ( and I know that there are a lot of you out there) please respond. I would really like to know how you would respond to all of this.
My experience in academia especially performance studies does not take a macro approach to situations. Instead it looks at the personal experiences and voices of the marginalized in order to make larger social critiques. So I think you writing of "fuzzyland" is completely appropriate-I personally just don't live in that space. I would never admit to being fixed in any category and my gender and sexuality are definitely contingent on context of situation I just don't see it as fuzzy. Not that it is defined more just that I am not fuzzy on my political stance that everything I do should be done in a queer way.
While I would agree whiteness (especially) but also middle class or (race/class) are different than ideas of gender and sexuality. However, as with everything I believe race and class too are social constructions and depend mostly on the value that we give them. Thus race and class can be queered also.
And I too do not believe in identity politics as they are typically articulated but I think that at times they have served and continue to serve important political functions. But I think it is only ethical to locate oneself-if that for someone means saying only white, middle class and queer then I would think that is fine.
I however cannot stop there as I am heavily influenced by the way that my feminine appearance plays out. Not only does this affect the way I read situations but the way my body is read too. This experience is much different (and at times less risky) then say someone who is trans or more gender defiant. This also doesn't mean that my feminine appearance is a complete conformity performance-I at least do not see it as such- and I also locate this within my work.
I think it is important to queer those identities but I see how those identities do not fit for everyone this is why most people have a list of adjectives to best describe themself. And even those don't always fit-but I also find power in some of these identities.
Like last year marching in the femme parade at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. Did I completely fit and was I completely comfortable there-no. But it was amazing to be surrounded by other womyn who think it is totally hot to wear fish nets and lace underwear with lots of eyeliner and false lashes. Did I feel a bit empowered-yes. Do I see how potentially problematic that is-yes!
But I think there is a difference in someone getting to produce their identities and define for themselves what or who they are (or not define at all if that is someone's choice)then have a label slapped on them by the outside world. This is why I choose femme-it was created and maintained by my community. Not "Are you the girl in the relationship? and my response being yes. And there can be power to self-identify, to tell your own stories, and to rewrite/tell your history-this is why I think locating one's self can be a very good thing.
And I think sometimes it is ok to locate differences and build coalitions across them (identities but mostly arguments or claims.) Seeing difference is not a bad thing, identifying one's gender and sexuality not a bad thing. Nor is not defining but I think we need to be careful when looking at people's stake in choosing to self-identify or not and not judging them for sticking to "labels."
this conversation is giving me a yuck feeling.
regardless of the history of the word 'queer' and where it comes from, it's still a word that is being embraced/adopted/rejected/resisted in mainstream, everyday life for a lot of people.
if a person wishes to adopt queer as their identity (which many do)...i guess i don't see anything wrong with it. chances are, they've thought a lot about the implications of that word and how people react to it - they probably have their own way of defining it for those they engage in conversation with.
i like the word queer. i feel that it allows me to discuss my gender and my sexuality (which are raced, classed, privileged in some ways, underprivileged in others...). if i wanted to get real specific, i'd identify as a girly-butch dyke...but most people, i don't really are to share such personal things about myself because i'm not interacting with them on this level.
queer is something that is different. it challenges the labels/stereotypes of LGBT. most people are not exposed to the academic discussions/debates surrounding the legitimacy of using this term - they just know that it is an identifying marker that can perhaps help situate them in the category of 'other' without as many walls or barriers...it's more flexible...and, i suppose that does ring true for it's original academic intent - it is not a term that can be pigeon-holed...
at this point, i don't think there is a right or wrong with this discussion. everyone has their own opinions for why they lean toward the labels they lean toward.
another ouch moment i had in this discussion was over personal experiences...
in most instances that i have experienced, whenever a person is sharing their personal experience to illustrate a point, they are often shut down, shut out, told their experience (while probably really horrible and hurtful) doesn't count - for the very reason kat suggested - because it makes it harder to counter arguments.
as a person who's life experience is constantly challenged, i would argue that that is bull shit. and this has been my main problem with academia. it lives in the theoretical and therefore cannot contribute fully to the daily, lived reality that exists at the moment. because, in theory, if we don't have personal experiences to counter the theoretical arguments being made, then the theory is neat and well packaged and agreeable.
but i guess i would challenge the argument brought up about personal experience being difficult to deal with inside the academy...it was said that most times it is utilized, it is done so in a manner that is intended to stop the discussion...how so? how is it not just a way for people to be able to say, wait a minute, your theory is fucked up? or i am missing how this theory or idea is connecting because it doesn't match up to what i've experienced? without personal experience, there would be no critique of queer theory. because it was the POC's out there that said, 'hey, this queer theory stuff is bull shit. this is completely unrecognizing A, B, C, X, Y, Z...'
or am i missing the point? perhaps i am just frustrated because i have experienced situations where i am trying to provide some lived experience stories and they are immediately discounted, disregarded, and/or ignored because it ruffles the water a bit too much...
wow, who knew this was so complicated?? hahahaha I'd like to just say this- it's the fire inside me that makes me queer. I think that if we sat around a fire asking ourselves all day, what is the nature of this fire? where did it come from? what are the implications of this fire? etc, we would drive ourselves crazy. My philosophy is just to enjoy myself and others and accept my true nature. It is what it is.
I never said that personal experience is used explicitly in order to stop discussion just that it has the possibility of doing so.And this wasn't necessarily in reference to the academy but in any public debate/deliberation scenario. I don't think personal experience has to stop conversations but I would almost guarantee that no one is going to question or argue with someone's experience. Ask questions-maybe? Tell their own personal experience-maybe? But probably a deep debate isn't going to take place and in every situation this isn't even really necessary. I do not think that in all situations at all times debate and argument is even needed-it's definitely not feminist nor queer to always operate in this mentality. So I apologize if I somehow discounted all use of personal experience-because that is really not my feeling at all. I in fact always write and theorize from a personal experience theoretical position.
I in fact highly value personal experience but do not like it when it is like "here is my experience THE END." I also like it when people are willing to say that their personal experience is an interpretation (one interpretation) that is located in that specific moment.
I also do not think all academia lives in the land of theoretical-that this is a very limited look and discounts all of those people that are doing really good work with personal experience including problematizing those very words.
I think personal experiences should be used most definitely. They are the most valuable ways to learn about someone else and their cultural and social situation. it pains me to know that meggo would think I think otherwise. I personally feel that people who theorize about everyday experience (mostly feminists of color) are the most brilliant people I have to learn from and not because they are doing abstract theorizing but because they are locating the theory in everyday situations.
But...yes there is a but...I do not think conversations should stop at personal experience. They are so valuable when they can be utilized in ways that connect them (or diverge them) to/from theories of everyday-many of which, happen to be queer. This isn't to package them up neatly but instead to open up the possibility of what experience even is, of what theorizing is, of what knowledge really is.
I also think it is fine to use the word queer as a marker of identity I just personally don't-and don't believe that is what the term is supposed to do. But this doesn't mean everyone should feel this way and that no one should ever use it this way. In this sense I feel my own personal experience is being quite discounted and my words being used in ways they are not intended or in ways that I did not even use them in the first place.
Amen Aspen,
Ahhhh, we get to one of the hearts of the debate. The chicken or egg? Which comes first? If it weren't for personal experience there would be no theory. If it weren't for theory many wouldn't have the words to express themselves, nor the explanations that their experiences aren't abnormal or wrong. Both are needed and the one does not happen without the other. So much so, that they can't really be separated.
First, since everyone is identifying their role/place within academia, I would just like to say that I am a dance scholar and express myself much better through choreography. So please excuse my verbal diarrhea. :)
As I was reading these incredibly long and involved blog posts, one thought kept occurring to me: no distinction is being made between using "queer" within academia and using "queer" within a more colloquial context. In academia, everything is ripped apart. Every piece of semantics is re-examined/over-examined and the origin of a word can color its very meaning. In the common nomenclature, however, nobody does this. "Queer" means something very simple. It is a way to express the inexpressible in a word; it is a way to express complications of gender/sexuality and the performance there in. It allows a person who fits into multiple gender or sexuality categories to include these categories in their identity.
I do not have complicated gender/sexuality identities. I am a woman, and I am a lesbian. However, I get to walk around with heterosexual privilege on a daily basis because of how I perform my gender. I am a lipstick of epic proportions and very much look like a white, straight, upper-middle class southern girl. Does that make me not queer? (because I don't dress/act in a non-normative manner?) When I wear rainbow gear/my lesbian mafia shirt, am I queer then, but not in my normal garb? My best friend is a straight woman, but she wears combat boots, baggy jeans, never wears any make-up and has short-cropped hair with blue streaks. Is she more queer than me, simply because of her style of dress?
The multiple posts about using queer as a verb I also find highly troublesome. Queer is very clearly an adjective or an adverb. When people use queer in the sense of "queering arts" or "queering ___", they are using it figuratively to mean looking at X through a queer lens. Looking at something from a queer stand point, or infiltrating a show, paper, or event with a queer perspective is very different from actually PHYSICALLY being able to "queer something." When Heather Davis said what she said, it was not with intention that anything and everything can be deemed queer, but simply that the term does not draw the distinct borders and boundaries that the terms "homosexual" or "heterosexual" do. She is simply speaking to the fact that queer politics can be open to a wide variety of people where ever they may fall within the GLBTA(hiqvghslkdfa) community... :)
I am in complete agreement with Quaking Aspen when she said that she likes the way queer allows her to negate the other labels. I think labeling yourself as "queer", and/or including it in the MANY MANY identities that make up a person, permits an individual to express their own version of themselves in a more non-committal way that allows for greater expression of gender and sexuality.
As for the HUGE slam on Judith Butler, I take serious issue. As with any scholarly literature, there are problematic sections of her arguments. There are certainly beliefs that she espouses that I do not agree with, but, for the most part, I think she rocks. She broke huge ground in her published papers, lectures, etc. and simply her race cannot, does not, degrade any of her validity. By those standards, all academics, including those writing on this blog, are completely null and void, as even if we are not all white, we have all been educated in a white, male, dominated school system. All of our foundational knowledge, textbooks, even history ITSELF was written by a bunch of dead white guys!!! However, it is the content of the argument that is most important. Simply one's race or their class origin does not and should not increase or decrease the viability of their argument.
No Huge slam on JB-I love performitivity specifically regarding gender and sexuality. But I do think one's race and class does limit their position for sure-but not discount it. I think it is great to use her work alongside others who are "quaring" even her theories. I do not think she necessarily suffices on her own any longer.
I also don't think you can separate the academy from colloquial use of this term because of its location. And I don't think the academy is separate from everyday life-it is just another social institution some people have to navigate through. While people may use it differently between these two places it is also used similarly so I see no reason to separate.
And yes we were all educated in white upper class school systems and some of us are deeply trying to make up for that everyday.
The comment"Queer is very clearly an adjective or an adverb"problematic. If it was that clear then we probably wouldn't be engaging in this on-line discussion that is part of a much greater debate on these issues. And the discussion is needed.
And I actually don't queer in the metaphorical sense but in a physical sense. I do think it is possible and I do think Davis believes we can queer any and everything (although she is specifically talking about marriage in this article.) And her idea of queer yes is not to draw distinct borders but is also located specifically in that line that it is something we have to do. You may not agree but this is her point and I do agree with it. I believe we can physicially queer ourselves when we dress, eat, interact, and engage sexual practices.
I do totally agree with lesbian from TX in how she feels about whether or not she is queer because of the het priv she experiences because I experience it too. This is my biggest problem because I am queer-do things in a queer way but my body for surely gets privileged for looking het femme. And I feel like I constantly have to come out and justify my choices for queer sexuality and prove that I am queer or LB all the time. This is frustrating for sure. It is something I have to negotiate everyday.
Post a Comment