The word "queer"

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Martov
And why do certain members here refer to homosexuals as queer? huh.gif

Stop reinforcing bigotry.

The term queer has been reclaimed by the LGBTI community for some time now, it's not bigoted to refer a lesbian or gay man as 'queer' - unless of course, contextually, you're being homophobic.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+November 23, 2007 02:49 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ November 23, 2007 02:49 am)
Martov
And why do certain members here refer to homosexuals as queer? huh.gif

Stop reinforcing bigotry.

The term queer has been reclaimed by the LGBTI community for some time now, it's not bigoted to refer a lesbian or gay man as 'queer' - unless of course, contextually, you're being homophobic. [/b]
Agreed.
All my friends in my school's LGBT club referto themselves and each other as queer. It's really not a term that enforces bigotry unless you add homophobic connotation to it.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+November 23, 2007 12:19 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ November 23, 2007 12:19 pm)
Martov
And why do certain members here refer to homosexuals as queer? huh.gif

Stop reinforcing bigotry.

The term queer has been reclaimed by the LGBTI community for some time now, it's not bigoted to refer a lesbian or gay man as 'queer' - unless of course, contextually, you're being homophobic. [/b]
It has been reclaimed by the LGBTI community?

Well, I suppose Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Queer as Folk have had some use! :P

Firstly, the homosexual community isn't exactly homogeneous. I have friends who consider the word offensive, and I have friends whom use it themselves. I don't think you can call a general conclusion. If anything, the word 'gay' is most commonly used amongst my homosexual friends to refer to their sexuality.

The usage of the word largely depends on where you are. I would imagine that calling someone queer in Southern USA is generally quite different to calling someone queer in a more progressive place.


It's really not a term that enforces bigotry unless you add homophobic connotation to it.

The reason I oppose the usage of this word is that it connotes that homosexuals are somehow unordinary - that they do not fit was it the typical norm of society - heterosexual. That they are weird and do not fit in. I would imagine that would have been the original intent of the word.

Unfortunately, the usage of the word by the straight community is still tinged with this meaning.

Let's look at another example: the use of the word 'nigger.'

Now that word has been 'reclaimed' by the African-American population.

Does that make it right for a white person to use it if in contextually 'okay'?

Context is of course important, but when you are using a word that is still a very much a loaded word then that, in my opinion, is another matter. Although, you might argue that 'reclaiming' that word is actively fighting against its old usage - that probably has some truth to it as well.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by martov+--> (martov)Firstly, the homosexual community isn't exactly homogeneous.[/b]

I never said it was - simply that the term had been reclaimed in a general sense - of course some people still don't like the term, particularly older queers and non-political people (queer stems from the politically conscious and radical LGBTI community which has strong ties to anarchist/libcom politics).


Originally posted by [email protected]

I have friends who consider the word offensive, and I have friends whom use it themselves. I don't think you can call a general conclusion.

I'm not suggesting that the term is universally accepted be everyone who comes under the banner of 'LGBTI' - merely that the meaning of the term has clearly changed and that 'queer' as a non-offensive descriptor/antonym for heteronormative is fairly common these days.



If anything, the word 'gay' is most commonly used amongst my homosexual friends to refer to their sexuality.

Ok... but I'm not suggesting that queer is a term that is used or even accepted everyone. Clearly the so-called 'queer' community is a diverse bunch of people.


martov

The usage of the word largely depends on where you are.

This is true and not just in a geographic sense (though you live in oz, where queer is probably in more common usage than most western countries). Like i said, it's use stems from political active members of the LGBTI community - so in schools, universities, social movements etc. it is more common - but with that said, the term has firmly taken root in the mainstream beyond the 'activist scene' since the mid 90s.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:39 am
In many metropolitan areas of the US it's been for the most part a 'reclaimed' word in the LGBT community.
You cannot reclaim a word that was never yours to begin with.

The word "queer" is a word used by homophobes to denigrate gay people. Reusing this homophobic word is a way of claiming acceptance that we are "proud" to be what they attack us for: Unusual/different/strange.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 24, 2007 07:31 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 24, 2007 07:31 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 09:39 am
In many metropolitan areas of the US it's been for the most part a 'reclaimed' word in the LGBT community.
You cannot reclaim a word that was never yours to begin with.

The word "queer" is a word used by homophobes to denigrate gay people. Reusing this homophobic word is a way of claiming acceptance that we are "proud" to be what they attack us for: Unusual/different/strange. [/b]
Be that as it may, in the US the word "queer" has been appropriated by the radical gay movement. I understand that it is different in the UK but in the US it is used by request of the LGTB community. Certainly, all gay people do not feel comfortable with it but my experience has been there is a strong majority of radical "queer folk" who utilize the term to identify a broad community of gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people. \

Indeed, I don't think I have ever heard the word used derogatorily in recent memory, and not for lack of being around homophobes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 25, 2007 02:01 am
there is a strong majority of radical "queer folk" who utilize the term to identify a broad community of gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people.
I don't accept that reusing homophobic words is particularly radical.

Being a "radical queer" is a separatist attitude accepting no-less the definition of homosexuality first propagated by homophobes. What does a "radical queer community" actually represent? What is the purpose of such a thing?

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24, 2007 08:08 pm
I don't accept that reusing homophobic words is particularly radical.

I didn't say that the use of the word was radical but that radical people use it.



Being a "radical queer" is a separatist attitude accepting no-less the definition of homosexuality first propagated by homophobes. What does a "radical queer community" actually represent? What is the purpose of such a thing?

I would agree to an extent though I wouldn't equate it with an acceptance of the word parallel to that of homophobes. Indeed, that is who is being combated. I understand what you are getting and while it is a bit semantical there is some truth there is "separatist" threads within the gay community. Nevertheless, the word is still being used.

What does is the purpose of and what does a "radical queer community represent"? I can direct you here Radical Homosexual Agenda (http://radicalhomosexualagenda.org/)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+November 25, 2007 02:33 am--> (Pawn Power @ November 25, 2007 02:33 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 24, 2007 08:08 pm
I don't accept that reusing homophobic words is particularly radical.

I didn't say that the use of the word was radical but that radical people use it. [/b]
I know what you said.


I understand what you are getting and while it is a bit semantical there is some truth there is "separatist" threads within the gay community. Nevertheless, the word is still being used.

The gay community is separatist by its very existence. It isn't a trend within the gay community it is the gay community. Take for example the link you provided for me. Focusing specifically on an arbitrary fact about yourself detracts from the real core issue of homophobia and creates separation; this is mimicked within the way the gay community creates "gay culture" (which I might add is a pink pound gimmick).

The "Radical Homosexual Agenda" is proposing difference and defending it. It may have core issues that it is trying to fight for, which I have no problem with, but to fight those issues within the confines of a community that is defined solely based on sexuality is extremely divisive.

It is important to be radical, but to be radically queer is something very different. Let's not forget that the only way to eradicate homophobia to destroy capitalism and create an integrated society.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 25, 2007 02:01 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 25, 2007 02:01 am)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 25, 2007 02:33 am

The Anarchist [email protected] 24, 2007 08:08 pm
I don't accept that reusing homophobic words is particularly radical.

I didn't say that the use of the word was radical but that radical people use it.
I know what you said.


I understand what you are getting and while it is a bit semantical there is some truth there is "separatist" threads within the gay community. Nevertheless, the word is still being used.

The gay community is separatist by its very existence. It isn't a trend within the gay community it is the gay community. Take for example the link you provided for me. Focusing specifically on an arbitrary fact about yourself detracts from the real core issue of homophobia and creates separation; this is mimicked within the way the gay community creates "gay culture" (which I might add is a pink pound gimmick).

The "Radical Homosexual Agenda" is proposing difference and defending it. It may have core issues that it is trying to fight for, which I have no problem with, but to fight those issues within the confines of a community that is defined solely based on sexuality is extremely divisive.

It is important to be radical, but to be radically queer is something very different. Let's not forget that the only way to eradicate homophobia to destroy capitalism and create an integrated society. [/b]
Is not sexuality, by its very nature separatist?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:42 am
Is not sexuality, by its very nature separatist?
Yes, I suppose so but we're not talking about the arbitrary fact of having a different sexuality to someone else, we are talking about politicising and being proud of that difference.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24, 2007 09:01 pm
The gay community is separatist by its very existence. It isn't a trend within the gay community it is the gay community. Take for example the link you provided for me. Focusing specifically on an arbitrary fact about yourself detracts from the real core issue of homophobia and creates separation; this is mimicked within the way the gay community creates "gay culture" (which I might add is a pink pound gimmick).

The "Radical Homosexual Agenda" is proposing difference and defending it. It may have core issues that it is trying to fight for, which I have no problem with, but to fight those issues within the confines of a community that is defined solely based on sexuality is extremely divisive.

It is important to be radical, but to be radically queer is something very different.
Again, I would say that a "separatist" position can be problematic. However, I do not see the "gay community," whatever that is, as wholly separate or promoting such a situation. Furthermore, uniting and organizing through specific identities is an important way in which marginalized groups, be it sexually, racially, ethnically, etc. struggle for change in certain contexts. Feminist movements have organized women to oppose institutions and practices specifically oppressive toward themselves, recognizing that structural change is needed for collective liberation of all people. It is difficult for some to fight oppression when certain people, within socially constructed groups or identities, are excluded or discounted in a movement. There has been, at the time, "radical" organization that excluded homosexuals, women, etc. So, in certain situations I think it is appropriate for groups to organize in opposition to certain forms of oppression, though understanding larger systemic causes.


Let's not forget that the only way to eradicate homophobia to destroy capitalism and create an integrated society.
Agreed!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 25, 2007 04:11 am
Again, I would say that a "separatist" position can be problematic. However, I do not see the "gay community," whatever that is, as wholly separate or promoting such a situation.
A gay community is by its existence, separatist.


Furthermore, uniting and organizing through specific identities is an important way in which marginalized groups, be it sexually, racially, ethnically, etc. struggle for change in certain contexts.

Struggling within those issues is something for everyone and should not be organised based on "specific identities". Identity is arbitrary and irrelevant to struggle against oppression, surely?


Feminist movements have organized women to oppose institutions and practices specifically oppressive toward themselves

While sexism is something that effects women directly, it is also an issue for men too and should not be organised as a movemend separate to that of an overall movement fighting to end sexism, based specifically on sex.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2007 03:01 am
Struggling within those issues is something for everyone and should not be organised based on "specific identities". Identity is arbitrary and irrelevant to struggle against oppression, surely?
If identity is "arbitrary and irrelevant" collectively, then it becomes "arbitrary and irrelevant" individually as well; since collective movements or groups are merely an association of individuals with a specific shared value, interest, or goal.

So if a gay community is separatist, doesn't that, by extension, make a gay person separatist? And thus all specific forms of sexuality separatist?

Is your opposition really against the "_____ community" or the concept of difference as a whole?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by counterblast+November 25, 2007 06:59 pm--> (counterblast @ November 25, 2007 06:59 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 25, 2007 03:01 am
Struggling within those issues is something for everyone and should not be organised based on "specific identities". Identity is arbitrary and irrelevant to struggle against oppression, surely?
If identity is "arbitrary and irrelevant" collectively, then it becomes "arbitrary and irrelevant" individually as well; since collective movements or groups are merely an association of individuals with a specific shared value, interest, or goal.

So if a gay community is separatist, doesn't that, by extension, make a gay person separatist? And thus all specific forms of sexuality separatist?

Is your opposition really against the "_____ community" or the concept of difference as a whole? [/b]
Being gay and wanting to struggle against homophobia is one thing. Separating yourself into a community and the exclusion of other people in order to struggle against homophobia something very different.

[obsolete discourse]

counterblast says:
Is your opposition really against the "_____ community" or the concept of difference as a whole?


anarchist tension says:
Being gay and wanting to struggle against homophobia is one thing. Separating yourself into a community and the exclusion of other people in order to struggle against homophobia something very different.

I think actually identity is the suppression of difference. While anarchist tension, may seek only one identity (i.e. class) for its most instrumental purposes, counterblast seems to be arguing for the radical possibilities of identity politics and reduces social and historical forces to Hegel's slave/master narrative or Fanon's retake on that issue. Perhaps it's a vulgar reading of class struggle that does this for me but I fail to see the utility in suppressing social and historical forces into identity, which includes a fetishism of class-as-identity (something we can clearly see in strange anarchist subcultures.) Furthermore, I think Negri and Hardt and all this talk of multitude, is just some strange way to justify social-democratic/Leftist forms of rebellion for the 21st century. (again read: Hegel's reconciliation of the master/slave dialectic)