Use of the word 'queer'

[apathy maybe]

Besides, there isn't anything wrong with being a radical queer. Especially not if you are a radical anarchist queer.

The liberal gay rights movement (just like liberal feminism) doesn't do anything to fundamentally change the world. I think we can all agree on that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Stop using the word queer!

[apathy maybe]

I heard Cthenthar was feeling a bit queer... He has a cold.

Personally, I'm queer as fuck, and when I get around to starting a thread in discrimination on the matter, I'll personally invite you to participate (unless you notice it before I do).

After all, what gives you the monopoly on what 'queer' means?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 08, 2007 10:07 pm
I heard Cthenthar was feeling a bit queer... He has a cold.

Personally, I'm queer as fuck, and when I get around to starting a thread in discrimination on the matter, I'll personally invite you to participate (unless you notice it before I do).
Don't be facetious. You using the word 'queer' to describe homosexuality or gay politics is what I'm talking about and if that wasn't clear then you're an idiot.


After all, what gives you the monopoly on what 'queer' means?

You keep defining the meaning. I'm simply reacting to it. If you claim to be a radical "queer" then stop using homophobic terminology.

[apathy maybe]

TAT: It was clear what you were talking about, I was deliberately being annoying (baiting you is almost as much fun as baiting Leninists, except that with you it seems to be about stuff that we shouldn't be arguing about...).

And I apologise given that you seem to have misunderstood me...


You keep defining the meaning. I'm simply reacting to it. If you claim to be a radical "queer" then stop using homophobic terminology.
Please, I don't now how I'm using homophobic terminology. I do try my best not to, and as far as I can remember, I haven't had any problem at all with gay people (unlike other folks I know). If I'm using the word "queer" in a way that is homophobic (or any language), please tell me what and how so that I can stop it.

This is a serious request, because I actually do respect you in a lot of ways.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 09, 2007 01:06 pm
Eh, 'queer' as a homophobic slur is well on it's way to becoming archaic.
Eh, no it isn't.

The word was created by homophobes to denigrate homosexuals.

Create a new word! I don't understand why we have to re-use homophobic words to describe our sexuality, which essentially is an agreement with homophobes that we are a "different" and "peculiar".

This accepted belief by the gay community is unacceptable. We're not "different" or "peculiar" and celebrating our sexuality or re-using these words is perpetuating the notion of separation and separation is never going to end oppression.

Our goal is to simply live in the world and do what the fuck we want without making our sexualities some self-motivating, self-identifying "celebration".

[apathy maybe]

Ah, so I haven't actually been homophobic at all. TAT just thinks that my use of the word "queer" to talk about the queer community is homophobic.

Well too bad billy oh. Where I come from, "queer" isn't a pejorative any more. I'm not using it as a pejorative, and if you don't like my use simply because I'm using it, then too bad.

What's next? You'll say that dykes on bikes shouldn't use the word dyke? Or that the "gay community" shouldn't use the word "gay" because it is a pejorative?

Nope, not going to happen.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 09, 2007 01:31 pm
Ah, so I haven't actually been homophobic at all. TAT just thinks that my use of the word "queer" to talk about the queer community is homophobic.
I never claimed you were being homophobic. I asked you to stop using homophobic words. Which apparently you're refusing to do.


Well too bad billy oh. Where I come from, "queer" isn't a pejorative any more.

Obviously that's not true. The word "queer" is a word used by homophobes to attack gay people. The fact that you are re-using the word does not stop it from being homophobic.

If it's anything, it's an ironic statement against homophobia but in actual fact you're simply using a word that describes homosexuality in the context of how homophobes use it.

You and the gay community think that this description is a factual one and this now means that the gay community is accepting it's separation, peculiarity and difference as a celebration. So not only are you just re-using a homophobic word, you are accepting that the initial meaning of the word used by homophobes is true.

Do you think that people should celebrate the separation, difference and peculiarity of their sexuality?


What's next? You'll say that dykes on bikes shouldn't use the word dyke? Or that the "gay community" shouldn't use the word "gay" because it is a pejorative?

I'd say that if we can't be creative and progressive by identifying ourselves differently to homophobes then we are doing ourselves a massive disservice.


Nope, not going to happen.

Yeah, I hear that a lot when challenging homophobia. It is, unfortunately, an attitude gay people are going to have to accept as yet another hurdle to overcome.

[apathy maybe]

You see a problem that I have with the terms, "gay and lesbian" and similar is that they re-enforce the idea that there are heterosexual people and homosexual people. Sometimes bisexual people might get a mention, but they are looked down upon by "both sides" (unless they are hot women who want to have sex with heterosexual men and other hot women).

The thing about the word "queer" and what it implies is that it is much broader then merely homosexual and bisexual. It encompasses all of the non-heterosexual (or perhaps all of the "not normal", depending, to quote the Wikipedia article on Queer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer) "a re-appropriated term used to describe a sexual orientation and/or gender identity or gender expression that does not conform to heteronormative society.").

I have also never heard it being used as a pejorative, and only once noticed it being used that way in writing (that I can remember), and that book also used it far more often as a way to describe someone who was gay in a non pejorative way (and was set in the 1970s).

I don't know the situation in the UK, but in Australia... Anyway, sorry Joe, but I'm going to continue using the word.

[The Feral Underclass]

You have not addressed my central argument. You have just repeated yourself.

Of course you will continue using the word. I would never have expected you to accept your mistake.


re-appropriated

You cannot re-appropriate something that was never yours in the first place. You are re-using a homophobic word.


I have also never heard it being used as a pejorative

Why on earth would you!? You have to be the victim of homophobia or be a homophobe for that to happen.

[apathy maybe]

I assume that you central argument is

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)Obviously that's not true. The word "queer" is a word used by homophobes to attack gay people. The fact that you are re-using the word does not stop it from being homophobic.[/b]I did address this, I asked if people should stop using the word "gay", after all it is used by homophobes to attack gay people...


Originally posted by [email protected]
Do you think that people should celebrate the separation, difference and peculiarity of their sexuality?It is better then pretending that everyone is heterosexual, or that everyone is either heterosexual or homosexual (and these seem to be the main two alternatives...).


TAT
Why on earth would you!? You have to be the victim of homophobia or be a homophobe for that to happen. I have never heard the word "queer" be used in the play ground or at schools as a pejorative, either against somebody or more generally against queer people. "Gay" on the other hand...
I have never heard the word "queer" be used as a pejorative in the media, either by mainstream commentators or by Christian nutbags. At least as far as I can tell in Australia, queer is only used neutrally, to describe the self professed queer community, or positively.

Does that address your main point? And can you address my points now?

(And can this discussion be split into Discrimination?)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+August 09, 2007 02:44 pm--> (apathy maybe @ August 09, 2007 02:44 pm) I assume that you central argument is

Originally posted by [email protected]
Obviously that's not true. The word "queer" is a word used by homophobes to attack gay people. The fact that you are re-using the word does not stop it from being homophobic.I did address this, I asked if people should stop using the word "gay", after all it is used by homophobes to attack gay people... [/b]
No, that's not my central argument.

The word gay was not coined by homophobes to attack homosexuals, so no, we shouldn't stop using it.



TAT
Do you think that people should celebrate the separation, difference and peculiarity of their sexuality?It is better then pretending that everyone is heterosexual, or that everyone is either heterosexual or homosexual (and these seem to be the main two alternatives...)

This is, essentially, my central argument but you seem to have missed the point. It's not about "pretending" people are not different, it's about celebrating or, as many "queer" activits proclaim, being proud of that difference.

The word queer is used by the so called radical gay community to encompass all gay/lesbians/transgender etc by asserting and ultimately celebrating the separation, peculiarity and difference that word has come to represent (to homophobes). Then we proclaim that we are proud of it!

This conscious act, both through intent and the re-using of this words serves to perpetuate oppression even further. Instead of refusing to regurgitate these words and their meanings and saying "I'm just gay" we create a community that we celebrate and separate from the rest of society because we're "proud" of it. All thanks to homophobes.

Separatism and pride in arbitrary things is what creates oppression. Self-identification as queer is an integral part of that problem.


At least as far as I can tell in Australia, queer is only used neutrally, to describe the self professed queer community, or positively.

I cannot accept that this is universally true. Even if it were true the word queer being used in this context is a clear indication of it's connection with homophobia as the word was created to describe gay people by homophobes.

[apathy maybe]

On the difference between "gay" and "queer", I don't like "gay" because it is not encompassing. Does "gay" include bisexuals, transsexuals, intersex people etc.? No it doesn't...


I don't see that the origin of the word queer matters, but rather how it is used.

The hetronormativeness of society means that it doesn't matter whether queer folk identify as separate or not, queer people will always be apart from mainstream community. This doesn't apply to all queers though, gay men and women will often get along just fine, but transvestites (for example) will continue to be stigmatised whether they separate themselves from the rest of society or not.

I don't like gender roles and gender, and I think that the all encompassing nature of "queer" (much much more then merely homosexuals), is a way for queers to help break gender stereotypes. (I'm not gay, bi or straight, I'm queer!) So while you see it as re-enforcing oppression, I see it as being part of the solution.

Genderfuck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderfuck)ing is a something else that helps break down stereotypes.

I haven't really got an answer to all of your points just now, but rather then leave what I have got unused, I'll put it up. I may respond later but I might not. My strange incoherence is partly to be blamed on my ignorance. I'm hoping Black Dagger (bleeding gums) will join in soon...

[TC]

I think TAT is completely right and he's done a really excellent job arguing this point.



Originally posted by TAT


The word queer is used by the so called radical gay community to encompass all gay/lesbians/transgender etc by asserting and ultimately celebrating the separation, peculiarity and difference that word has come to represent (to homophobes). Then we proclaim that we are proud of it!

This conscious act, both through intent and the re-using of this words serves to perpetuate oppression even further. Instead of refusing to regurgitate these words and their meanings and saying "I'm just gay" we create a community that we celebrate and separate from the rest of society because we're "proud" of it. All thanks to homophobes.

Separatism and pride in arbitrary things is what creates oppression. Self-identification as queer is an integral part of that problem.


You're absolutely right i think.


Sexuality and gender are not inherently political issues, they are inter-personal issues. They are only made political through oppression and the non-oppressed group is never politicized. Heterosexuality was never part of anyone's political identity nor is being male. Creating equality doesn't mean creating a segregated subculture but allowing for full, politically neutral, it is depoliticizing it.

The genuine feminist movement (not the crappy identitarian reactionary "feminists") recognized that it was precisely reducing women to their anatomy and differences from men that provided the ideological basis to justify women's oppression.

Likewise reducing homosexuals to their sexual differences with heterosexuals and politicizing those differences only contributes to the extent to which gay's sexuality is allowed to limit their social power and equal social participation.


When someone, often not an actual gay person but a self-identified bisexual or genderqueer or whatever, decides that being "queer" is the most important part of their political identity, and that anyone else who they see as "queer" (including otherwise totally average people who just happen to prefer partners of the same sex) has a political obligation to participate in their movement, they are placing undue and unequal socio-political burdens on people according to their sexual preference. This quite obviously undermines sexual equality because it suggests that people lose their right to political and social self determination simply because they happen to be gay; it is an attempt to co-opt a population into a political agenda, seeing them as queers first rather than people or workers just as the radical feminists insist on seeing people as womyn first rather than people or workers.

[bcbm]

Separatism and pride in arbitrary things is what creates oppression. Self-identification as queer is an integral part of that problem.

Yeah, before those fucking queers started appreciating their sexuality (who said anything about separatism?), there was no oppression. Their pride parades and Indie Queer Dance nights (guess where I was last night) brought all of the heterosexist shit gays, lesbians and trans-folk have to deal with!

Get real, TAT. Pride is clearly a response to oppression, not the cause of it. That's the sort of bullshit conservatives argue: "Why can't we have a straight pride parade?!" Appreciating and learning to not hate those parts of your identity which lead to oppression seems like a pretty integral part of overcoming oppression to me, on a personal level if nothing else.


Creating equality doesn't mean creating a segregated subculture but allowing for full, politically neutral, it is depoliticizing it.

I don't see where segregation plays in to it... I can't recall any of my queer friends ever telling me to go away because I'm straight.

Over all, I agree with most of the points you're making TC, but I don't think there is anything wrong with continuing to combat homophobia and heterosexism through pride over the things you've been stepped on about, as long as it doesn't become as you say, the primary thing through which you act politically.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I believe that sexuality is a personal thing. we're all hunmyn. why do we have to define ourselves as queer, straight or what ever. in my eyes, nobody should be proud or ashamed of their sexuality. I believe in equality. nobody should care about sexuality. thats my opinion.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 05:05 pm

Separatism and pride in arbitrary things is what creates oppression. Self-identification as queer is an integral part of that problem.

Yeah, before those fucking queers started appreciating their sexuality
Why do you need to appreciate your sexuality?


(who said anything about separatism?)

Nobody "said anything"; gay people just have, largely, separated themselves.


Their pride parades and Indie Queer Dance nights (guess where I was last night) brought all of the heterosexist shit gays, lesbians and trans-folk have to deal with!

Firstly, modern day "pride" parades are nothing but commercial endevaurs for mostly straight people to make money. It has nothing to do with challenging homophobia.

Secondly, we don't need "Indie Queer Dance Nights", we just need to live in society. Gay people should go to bars and clubs and do whatever they want (just live). Of course this is daunting, but this is the reality of homophobic society. The point is to challenge it, not hide from it.

That's not to say that gay people should not be able to create their own spaces if they choose to do so, but we have to accept that this is not going to challenge and change homophobia.


Get real, TAT. Pride is clearly a response to oppression, not the cause of it.

Don't fucking patronise me! Why don't you try and have a little more fucking respect. Especially to a comrade who is gay and has experienced homophobic oppression.

Firstly, I have never once claimed pride is any other kind of response, my point is that it's the wrong response. Secondly, being proud of your sexuality, just as with your race or colour is a cause of oppression.

What we should be calling for is a move away from "pride" in arbitrary facts and an a simple indifference to difference.

None of it is relevant.


Appreciating and learning to not hate those parts of your identity which lead to oppression seems like a pretty integral part of overcoming oppression to me, on a personal level if nothing else.

There are better, more progressive ways to do that.

Firstly, by refusing to be apart of a commercialised and unrealistically vein community that idolises beauty. Secondly, by creating autonomous spaces for young and old gay people to meet and share experiences away from that scene and thirdly, by having activists encouraging and supporting young people to come to terms with their sexualities and face up to confrontation.

What you are defending is a community that is both unsupportive, separatist, commercialised and apathetic to gay rights of any real kind. Gay liberation is not when we are allowed to be apart of a capitalist society in the same way straight people are and it certainly is not turning your sexuality into a lifestyle.

[bcbm]

Why do you need to appreciate your sexuality?

To overcome the negative feelings our heteronormative society pushes on homosexuals?


Nobody "said anything"; gay people just have, largely, separated themselves.

Is that relevant to the discussion? If nobody here has said anything about it, then they probably aren't supportive or in favor of that, wouldn't you think? So that argument is, what, a red herring?


Firstly, modern day "pride" parades are nothing but commercial endevaurs for mostly straight people to make money. It has nothing to do with challenging homophobia.

I agree, but that isn't relevant to the point I was trying to make.


Secondly, we don't need "Indie Queer Dance Nights", we just need to live in society. Gay people should go to bars and clubs and do whatever they want (just live). Of course this is daunting, but this is the reality of homophobic society. The point is to challenge it, not hide from it.

I didn't say they were needed, but I'm not going to say they shouldn't exist either. If people want to create a safe and positive space that's supportive of an oppressed group, why is that a bad thing? You yourself say its okay. Furthermore, I'd say that the people who attend those parties are probably doing exactly what you want them to: just living.


Don't fucking patronise me! Why don't you try and have a little more fucking respect. Especially to a comrade who is gay and has experienced homophobic oppression.

My apologies for being a bit snarky. You know I generally have respect for you and your opinions, but your statement struck me as fairly absurd. So, sorry.


Secondly, being proud of your sexuality, just as with your race or colour is a cause of oppression.

Being proud of something that is incidental and nothing to be ashamed or oppressed over, but you have been consistently made to feel ashamed and oppressed for because of the society you live in, causes oppression? What?


What we should be calling for is a move away from "pride" in arbitrary facts and an a simple indifference to difference.

I couldn't agree more, but let's start with the major problems of homophobia and heterosexism, not the (wrong or not) response to them.


There are better, more progressive ways to do that.

I'm not framing this in terms of either-or about what can be done to combat this society.


What you are defending is a community that is both unsupportive, separatist, commercialised and apathetic to gay rights of any real kind.

And I&#39;m being patronizing? Do you really think I&#39;m merely supportive of some liberal capitalist gay "agenda," the end? <_< You should know me better than that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 08:08 pm

Why do you need to appreciate your sexuality?

To overcome the negative feelings our heteronormative society pushes on homosexuals?
Young gay people do not need to learn to "appreciate" their sexuality; simply accept it as a fact that is no different to any sexuality.




Nobody "said anything"; gay people just have, largely, separated themselves.

Is that relevant to the discussion?

Only in so far as the comments you made in your last post.


If nobody here has said anything about it, then they probably aren&#39;t supportive or in favor of that, wouldn&#39;t you think? So that argument is, what, a red herring?

Erm, but like I said it hasn&#39;t got anything to do with people "saying" it, but doing it.


Furthermore, I&#39;d say that the people who attend those parties are probably doing exactly what you want them to: just living.

Yes they probably are, but they are living their lifestyle separately to heterosexuals.



What we should be calling for is a move away from "pride" in arbitrary facts and an a simple indifference to difference.

I couldn&#39;t agree more, but let&#39;s start with the major problems of homophobia and heterosexism, not the (wrong or not) response to them.

I don&#39;t see how those two things are exclusive. How can you start with the problems of homophobia by responding to them in the wrong way?



There are better, more progressive ways to do that.

I&#39;m not framing this in terms of either-or about what can be done to combat this society.

I am.

We have done it that way for years now and homophobia still exists. There needs to be an understanding that what the gay community is doing is not challenging homophobia, it is accepting it or ignoring it.


Do you really think I&#39;m merely supportive of some liberal capitalist gay "agenda," the end? <_< You should know me better than that.

I don&#39;t think you&#39;re "merely" supportive of it, but you are supportive of it nevertheless.

[syndicat]

Perhaps there is some difference in the use of the word "queer" between the USA and the British Isles. the word "queer" was perhaps originally used as a euphymism for gay or homosexual, particularly in regard to men. but what happened is that gays started using the term to refer to themselves, maybe the motivation was similar to the use of the N-word by black American youth. I&#39;m not sure. In any event, the use of the word "queer" by gay men, particularly working class gay men, to refer to themselves is quite common nowadays in the USA. it&#39;s used in particular by men who are assertive in their openness about being gay. you will even see Leftwing groups here in the USA use the phrase "queer liberation" nowadays instead of the older phrase "gay liberation". that indicates how accepted the Q word has become.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:55 am
Perhaps there is some difference in the use of the word "queer" between the USA and the British Isles. the word "queer" was perhaps originally used as a euphymism for gay or homosexual, particularly in regard to men. but what happened is that gays started using the term to refer to themselves, maybe the motivation was similar to the use of the N-word by black American youth. I&#39;m not sure. In any event, the use of the word "queer" by gay men, particularly working class gay men, to refer to themselves is quite common nowadays in the USA. it&#39;s used in particular by men who are assertive in their openness about being gay. you will even see Leftwing groups here in the USA use the phrase "queer liberation" nowadays instead of the older phrase "gay liberation". that indicates how accepted the Q word has become.
Why don&#39;t you read the thread before posting.

[counterblast]

Queer is one of the few all-inclusive terms I know of... whereas terms like "GLBT" are limiting and put importance on a universal concept of gender/sex.. leaving pansexual, genderqueer, multi-gendered, non-gendered, multi-sexed, non-sexed, and a slew of other identities that deviate from the heterosexist gender dichotomy to be totally excluded.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 09, 2007 06:48 am
Stop using the word queer&#33;
What term would you prefer be used to refer to lesbian, gay, bi & trans peoples? LGBT?

[counterblast]

Yes they probably are, but they are living their lifestyle separately to heterosexuals.

Well, please do forgive those greedy queer people for "living separately"&#33;

How greedy of transvestites for visiting a bar where they can wear a dress without ridicule.
How greedy of lesbians for visiting a bar where a 20-something heterosexual man isn&#39;t asking to have a threesome.
How greedy of genderqueered people for visiting a bar where everyone doesn&#39;t fit traditional gender roles.
How greedy of gay men for visiting a bar where asking to buy a man a drink doesn&#39;t land you in the hospital.
How greedy of a trans-woman for visiting a bar where men are comfortable that she "used to be a man".
How greedy of a trans-man for visiting a bar where he can go the bathroom without ridicule.

[TC]

err that would be the obvious alternative...

...although its also an artificial political construct...being a gay male doesn&#39;t automatically entail affinity or political allegiance to lesbians, bis, and trans people...

...but it has the advantage over "queer" in that it is normally used to refer to political or social organisations (i.e. an "lgbt society") rather than a movement or ideological position, and unlike &#39;queer&#39; it doesn&#39;t imply otherness or non-neutrality or a deconstructionist post-modern view of sex, gender and sexual orientation.




Well, please do forgive those greedy queer people for "living separately"&#33;


I have a hard time believing you&#39;d argue for segregation in terms of race despite the existence of racists. What you&#39;re describing is justifying ghettoization.

Social progress means that people don&#39;t have to live separately, that they have equal access to mainstream society and can participate on a socially even footing. I suspect what probably freaks TAT out the most though isn&#39;t that some choose to self-segregate themselves but the implicit suggestion in the queer movement that being gay means you ought to, means that you are somehow fundamentally different from straight people, and thats clearly deeply reactionary and politically repressive.

And clearly TAT wasn&#39;t describing them as being "greedy" so i don&#39;t know why you&#39;re arguing along those lines.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:09 pm
Social progress means that people don&#39;t have to live separately, that they have equal access to mainstream society and can participate on a socially even footing.
Of course, the objective should be to end trans/homophobia and the seperatism between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals/ cisgendered and otherwise-gendered... but every pleasurable moment of existence should NOT have to be surrendered by queers in the process...

Besides; there are still the lingering questions of how lesbians and gays would network in space catered to a mostly-homosexual world... Is is not necessary for gay bars to exist, if only to allow distinguishment from heterosexuals?

And do you suggest the concepts of heterosexuality/homosexuality are disciminatory; thus everyone should be pansexual in the name of "social progress"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+August 10, 2007 12:57 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta &#064; August 10, 2007 12:57 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 09, 2007 06:48 am
Stop using the word queer&#33;
What term would you prefer be used to refer to lesbian, gay, bi & trans peoples? LGBT? [/b]
I don&#39;t know but an interesting question is why do we need to refer to all these people collectively in the first place?

Why do we need a collective noun that essentially indicates our differences? Our goal should be to move away from these collective &#39;safe-areas&#39; where we all feel that we can "be ourselves" - that includes through the language we employ to identify ourselves.

We can be ourselves in society as a whole and if people don&#39;t like that then tuff fucking shit&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by counterblast+August 10, 2007 01:30 pm--> (counterblast @ August 10, 2007 01:30 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 12:09 pm
Social progress means that people don&#39;t have to live separately, that they have equal access to mainstream society and can participate on a socially even footing.
Of course, the objective should be to end trans/homophobia and the seperatism between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals/ cisgendered and otherwise-gendered... but every pleasurable moment of existence should NOT have to be surrendered by queers in the process.. [/b]
What does that even mean? That gay people have more fun than straight people? I&#39;m sorry but you&#39;re not being very clear.


Besides; there are still the lingering questions of how lesbians and gays would network in space catered to a mostly-homosexual world... Is is not necessary for gay bars to exist, if only to allow distinguishment from heterosexuals?

There is a mistake in this paragraph somewhere? I can&#39;t work out what you&#39;re trying to say?

[TC]

Of course, the objective should be to end trans/homophobia and the seperatism between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals/ cisgendered and otherwise-gendered... but every pleasurable moment of existence should NOT have to be surrendered by queers in the process...
Besides; there are still the lingering questions of how lesbians and gays would network in space catered to a mostly-homosexual world...

Sure, which is why building your identity around your sexuality is socially undesirable.

A lot of gay people (I would guess the overwhelming majority but it would just be a guess) are in straight-majority social networks and have mostly straight friends because they define themselves socially and politically according to their social and political interests not just what sex their partner is (and since most people are straight it works out that way). I&#39;ve had friends who weren&#39;t even aware that some of our mutual friends were gay, not because they were "closeted", but because they just never made a big deal about it so it wasn&#39;t obvious when they were single...

Some seem to hang out in exclusively or predominately LGBT social circles and only do political work in that context...that seems a little artificially limiting to me and i&#39;m sure that others would resent it if it was suggested that they do the same.


Is is not necessary for gay bars to exist, if only to allow distinguishment from heterosexuals?


Well i think gay pick-up bars need to exist for the same reason that non-gay pick up bars need to exist...for the simple reason that they increase people&#39;s odds of getting picked up...

But thats a very limited social setting it doesn&#39;t constitute an entire social network and it would be frankly a little lame to have your entire social life revolve around it.



And do you suggest the concepts of heterosexuality/homosexuality are disciminatory; thus everyone should be pansexual in the name of "social progress"?

No, i don&#39;t know where you got that.

But anyways I think heterosexuality and homosexuality have empirical validity beyond being purely culturally dependent concepts (like gender or race, they are social constructs applied over biological variation), and i don&#39;t think concepts of that category can be either inherently reactionary or inherently progressive, they are neutral but for what connotations are socially imposed on them.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:51 pm


Of course, the objective should be to end trans/homophobia and the seperatism between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals/ cisgendered and otherwise-gendered... but every pleasurable moment of existence should NOT have to be surrendered by queers in the process...
Besides; there are still the lingering questions of how lesbians and gays would network in space catered to a mostly-homosexual world...

Sure, which is why building your identity around your sexuality is socially undesirable.

A lot of gay people (I would guess the overwhelming majority but it would just be a guess) are in straight-majority social networks and have mostly straight friends because they define themselves socially and politically according to their social and political interests not just what sex their partner is (and since most people are straight it works out that way). I&#39;ve had friends who weren&#39;t even aware that some of our mutual friends were gay, not because they were "closeted", but because they just never made a big deal about it so it wasn&#39;t obvious when they were single...

Some seem to hang out in exclusively or predominately LGBT social circles and only do political work in that context...that seems a little artificially limiting to me and i&#39;m sure that others would resent it if it was suggested that they do the same.


Sure, which is why building your identity around your sexuality is socially undesirable.

There is a difference in building your entire identity around sexuality, and incorporating it into your identity.

And I certainly don&#39;t disagree that most homosexuals live in mostly-straight social circles, and I advocate strongly for such coexistence. But in terms of romance, and support for homosexual-related issues; it can help to have a place where homosexuals can network with other homosexuals. As even in a mostly-tolerant world; homosexuals can feel excluded (even if only romantically) by a heterosexual majority.