Use of the term queer; its effects

[Scars]

Originally posted by Black Dagger@Apr 17 2006, 06:05 AM
Still waiting for you to use the term queer

Actually I have never heard a homosexual/bisexual/transsexual every describe themselves as 'queer' (excluding movies, but they don't count). Homosexuals, in my experience, refer to themselves as 'gay', bisexuals as 'bi' and transsexuals as the gender that they believe they truely are (as opposed to physcially are).

And so people don't accuse me of having no contact with said people, I've spent much of my life surrounded by homosexuals. My uncle is, my best friends mother is, a close family friend is (plus her partner, but I don't really like her), another friends mother is, my girlfriend is bisexual plus various friends and associates. The only group mentioned above that I haven't had a whole lot of contact with is transsexuals...possibly somthing to do with lack of numbers. Or maybe I have and I just haven't realised

[Black Dagger]

Actually I have never heard a homosexual/bisexual/transsexual every describe themselves as 'queer' (excluding movies, but they don't count).

Guessed you missed all my posts in this thread? http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=46215&st=0

And our exchanges? How can i forget you calling 'queer', 'pseudo-nationalism' and queer people separatists!

Although if i was you i'd forget that thread too, you took quite a spanking! Feel free to revive the debate if you wish, you still haven't responded to myself or Mujer Libre.

I hear people use the term practically ever day of my fucking life, but hey the person who regards queers as 'pseudo-nationalists' must be right!

Homosexuals, in my experience, refer to themselves as 'gay',

Why don't you refer to gay people as gay if this is how 'in your experience' gay peoples refer to themselves?

And of course a lot of gay people refer to themselves as gay! That's my point, this about collective terms, queer is a collective term, like people of colour is a collective term, a lot of 'people of colour' refer to themselves as black, brown, latina/latino, asian, african, afro-american, african-american and so forth.

People of colour is a collective term that is used to show solidarity between the peoples who fall under this 'colour' banner, in the same way that queer is used a solidarity term for all people who fall under the 'queer' banner, this is not suggesting that every person of colour refers to themselves in that way, or all the time, it's the same for queer.

People who fall under the term 'queer' will refer to themselves as lesbian, gay, trans etc depending on context, and depending on context, refer to themselves as queer as well, it's not an either or situation. The term queer is not meant to replace gay, trans etc. because these refer to specific identities (although plenty of people identify just as 'queer' because of the explicitly political implications the term has) - but merely to be used when talking about things that affect queer people as a whole or with reference to all non-hetero sexualties, as a collective term, like people of colour.

This is most obvious with things like Queer blocs at rallies/demos/protests - where queer peoples from various 'catergories' will organise together, and organisations/groups that organise under the banner 'queer' - as to include all queer people and focus on issues that affect everyone that that term applies too.

And so people don't accuse me of having no contact with said people, I've spent much of my life surrounded by homosexuals.

Well don't accuse me of being out of touch with myself or 'my community' because i'm fucking queer!

My uncle is, my best friends mother is, a close family friend is, another friends mother is, my girlfriend is bisexual plus various friends and associates.

So? Just because, apparently some old queers you know don't like the term (no suprises there really) doesn't mean that nobody uses it or that the term itself shouldnt be used - although this obviously what you favour, seeing how you want to abolish 'queer' identity. I mean, the term is even used in main-stream hetero culture, on all the bourgeois queer programs, like 'will and grace', 'queer as folk', 'the L-Word' etc.

Google the word 'queer', you'll find hundreds of pages of queer organisations, queer-zines, events, queer art, queer theory - and no, none of those pages are authored by me, queer-identifying people do exist!

I'm also not suprised that apparently have never ever ever ever met anyone who uses the term queer, given your obsession with homogenising social identities, and your aversion to for self-determination of the oppressed, and 'identity politics' (i.e. non-class identities), it's hardly suprising you don't bump into too many political queers - they probably turn and run when they see you coming!

[Scars]

<<Guessed you missed all my posts in this thread?>>

I mean in the real world. To be pedantic I read that, I didn&#39;t hear it.

<<Although if i was you i&#39;d forget that thread too, you took quite a spanking&#33; Feel free to revive the debate if you wish, you still haven&#39;t responded to myself or Mujer Libre.>>

I believe I was out of town. I travel a lot between cities.

<<And our exchanges? How can i forget you calling &#39;queer&#39;, &#39;pseudo-nationalism&#39; and queer people separatists&#33;>>

Pseudo-nationalism, most definatley. It&#39;s built around the assumption that a group of people are different from other people because of some biological factor. Seperatism? I never called it seperatism. I don&#39;t believe you want to break away and found Homosexualia/Gayville/Queervania.

In addition, you must seperate between my comments about the pseudo-nationalists and the group they aim to represent. My views on &#39;the homosexual question&#39; (if you want) has been shaped by 3 things:
1) My involvement with the PLP.
2) My contact with homosexuals, particularly my Uncle.
3) Foucault (who was one of the earlier open homosexuals in France)

Homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, asexuals, whatever are exactly the same as hetrosexuals, they just have different preferences when it comes to who they sleep with. In every other regards they are the same and should be treated as such.

<<Why don&#39;t you refer to gay people as gay if this is how &#39;in your experience&#39; gay peoples refer to themselves?>>

Because &#39;gay&#39; has become a way to dodge the issue. Homosexuals are still not accepted or treated as equals, however they&#39;re tolerated if they sanitize their &#39;image&#39;. So Homosexual women aren&#39;t homosexual, they&#39;re &#39;Lesbians&#39; and so on.

As for &#39;queer&#39; as a collective term, what&#39;s wrong with &#39;humanity&#39;?

<<Well don&#39;t accuse me of being out of touch with myself or &#39;my community&#39; because i&#39;m fucking queer&#33;>>

I didn&#39;t accuse you of being out of touch.

<<So? Just because, apparently some old queers you know don&#39;t like the term (no suprises there really) doesn&#39;t mean that nobody uses it or that the term itself shouldnt be used>>

They&#39;re not all old. And it&#39;s not that they don&#39;t &#39;like&#39; the term, it&#39;s that they don&#39;t use it.

<<although this obviously what you favour, seeing how you want to abolish &#39;queer&#39; identity>>

No, I&#39;m more saying that it doesn&#39;t exist. It&#39;s an artifically created structure designed to be a sort of &#39;fortress&#39; against bourgeois oppression. However fortresses keep out everything, both good and bad a like.

<<I&#39;m also not suprised that apparently have never ever ever ever met anyone who uses the term queer, given your obsession with homogenising social identities, and your aversion to for self-determination of the oppressed, and &#39;identity politics&#39; (i.e. non-class identities)>>

http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/nationalismpl69.pdf

<<it&#39;s hardly suprising you don&#39;t bump into too many political queers - they probably turn and run when they see you coming>>

Maybe. I am struck with a sense of amazing grief.



<<Google the word &#39;queer&#39;, you&#39;ll find hundreds of pages of queer organisations, queer-zines, events, queer art, queer theory - and no, none of those pages are authored by me, queer-identifying people do exist&#33;>>

Never said they didn&#39;t. Google &#39;Ayran&#39; and you&#39;ll get as many results. This doesn&#39;t mean that either of them are progressive.

[Black Dagger]

I mean in the real world. To be pedantic I read that, I didn&#39;t hear it.

Same difference.

Pseudo-nationalism, most definatley. It&#39;s built around the assumption that a group of people are different from other people because of some biological factor.

Homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, asexuals, whatever are exactly the same as hetrosexuals, they just have different preferences when it comes to who they sleep with. In every other regards they are the same and should be treated as such.

From me in the other thread:

Being queer is more than &#39;just a biological preference&#39;, and has been for a long time. Queer peoples should not be attacked for reacting in the same way that many other groups in society do when faced with oppression, stereotyping, slurs/insults, and that is create a positive identity culture, one that reinforces a positive image and smashes up the BS created by people with prejudices, building a community for support, education and so forth, based on this common experience. This is what people have done when faced with &#39;racial&#39; oppression and a similar pattern has been followed by peoples faced with sexual oppression.

And of course it&#39;s not as simple as &#39;they have different preferences, that&#39;s all&#39;, society doesn&#39;t operate that way. Because of prejudice and social oppression, having a queer sexuality, or a vagina, or brown skin means you get treated differently.

Approaching society with a colour blind&#39;/gender &#39;blind&#39;/sexuality &#39;blind&#39; attitude is a thoroughly liberal notion, and speaks of someone who is not a victim of social oppression, &#39;hey stop making a deal of it&#33; We should all just hold hands in unity and forget out differences&#33;&#39; Unfortunately people are not gonna just forget getting lynched or &#39;gay-bashed&#39;.

You are obsessed with dismissing all movements/identities that want to exist and fight oppression as an autonomous group. You oppose the idea of non-communist solidarity, black power is an unacceptable as white power to you, the Black Panthers and the KKK are all just &#39;pseudo-nationalists&#39;, yeah? Indigenous organisations, run by Indigenous people are just a distraction and if anyone is serious about doing anything in the society they should join the communist party?

What you propose is homogeneity, and will never be accepted in a society where diverse populations are socially fragmented by capitalist society, not just into classes, but along gender, sexuality, ethnic lines and so forth. In a society where people experience oppression differently, where people are attacked because of who they are, building up solidarity in oppressed communities - unity, is paramount if a greater unity between all groups in society will ever be possible.

After all, the best opponents of any prejudice are the victims of it, the best prosecutors of class war are the working class, sexism - wimmin, and so forth. These &#39;psuedo nationalist&#39; groups as you call them are essential in giving brutally honest, up-front analysis of society, and significantly, the communist movement itself. Your desire to shove everyone into a big communist basket will only lead to resentment, and even more division, people don&#39;t like being assimilated, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.

Seperatism? I never called it seperatism. I don&#39;t believe you want to break away and found Homosexualia/Gayville/Queervania.

You from the old thread, http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=46215&st=25

and i quote:

Originally posted by Scars+--> (Scars)However going and breaking away and forming seperate societies, seperate cultures and attempting to build a mini-nation just reaffirms what the homophobics are saying, as they can then point at this little group and say "Look&#33; They ARE different&#33; They&#39;re nothing like us&#33; They even say so&#33; Lets poke them with sticks&#33;".[/b]

That&#39;s pretty bloody close to saying to saying separatism to me.

And then there&#39;s this:

Originally posted by Scars@
It&#39;s not &#39;my&#39; culture, it&#39;s our culture. I do not believe that homosexuals should seperate themselves off and claim that they are in any way different, nor should they build a culture around what is a biological occurance. It&#39;s like people with green eyes going off and claiming that they&#39;re different from anyone else- they&#39;re not. They simply have a different biological make up.

By saying that you don&#39;t think &#39;homosexuals&#39; &#39;should seperate themselves off&#39; you&#39;re implying that there are &#39;homosexuals&#39; who wish to &#39;seperate themselves off&#39; - i.e. that some &#39;homosexuals&#39; are separatists.

Because &#39;gay&#39; has become a way to dodge the issue.

So you don&#39;t care about what term gay people would prefer? You&#39;ll just use what term you think is best? How patronising&#33;

Homosexuals are still not accepted or treated as equals, however they&#39;re tolerated if they sanitize their &#39;image&#39;.

What does that have with to do with refusing to call gay people gay or using the term queer?

So Homosexual women aren&#39;t homosexual, they&#39;re &#39;Lesbians&#39; and so on.

See above.

As for &#39;queer&#39; as a collective term, what&#39;s wrong with &#39;humanity&#39;?

Um, it&#39;s a bit broad? Why don&#39;t we use the term &#39;humanity&#39; when we&#39;re talking about people of colour or about queers? Because we&#39;re not talking about all of humanity, just a certain bit of it - i thought that would have been quite evident.

They&#39;re not all old. And it&#39;s not that they don&#39;t &#39;like&#39; the term, it&#39;s that they don&#39;t use it.

Well i&#39;m assuming your uncle, and your aunty, or your friend&#39;s mum or whatever are all &#39;old&#39;. As ive said before, not everyone uses the term, but queer is a useful term like LGBTI, for encompassing a collection of non-heterosexualities.

No, I&#39;m more saying that it doesn&#39;t exist.

And hence, you&#39;re advocating it&#39;s abolition. To you it &#39;doesn&#39;t exist&#39;, to a person who identifies as &#39;queer&#39; it most certainly does, i think i&#39;ll take the side of queer people on this one.

It&#39;s an artifically created structure designed to be a sort of &#39;fortress&#39; against bourgeois oppression.

I thought you said it doesn&#39;t exist? So it does exist but it&#39;s artificial?
Well all identities are constructions, but that doesn&#39;t make them invalid or useless. What is a working class identity? Or a marxist identity?

However fortresses keep out everything, both good and bad a like.

Rubbish. What is queer identity &#39;keeping&#39; out that is &#39;good&#39;?

http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/nationalismpl69.pdf

You don&#39;t really seem to get that queer theory, like feminism, is logically linked to the struggle against capitalism. All the politically active queers that i know are anarchists or marxists of some form, a radical challenge to hetero-patriarchy is revolution, the abolition of capitalism and the state, will lead to the break-down of bourgeois social structures, gender roles and that rigid constructions of sexuality that are tied into these.

Never said they didn&#39;t.

Well that was the impression that your statement gave:

Scars

Actually I have never heard a homosexual/bisexual/transsexual every describe themselves as &#39;queer&#39; (excluding movies, but they don&#39;t count). Homosexuals, in my experience, refer to themselves as &#39;gay&#39;, bisexuals as &#39;bi&#39; and transsexuals as the gender that they believe they truely are (as opposed to physcially are).

Google &#39;Ayran&#39; and you&#39;ll get as many results. This doesn&#39;t mean that either of them are progressive.

Wowsers, fallacy galore&#33;

P.S.

Why didn&#39;t you respond this huge part of my post?

"And of course a lot of gay people refer to themselves as gay&#33; That&#39;s my point, this about collective terms, queer is a collective term, like people of colour is a collective term, a lot of &#39;people of colour&#39; refer to themselves as black, brown, latina/latino, asian, african, afro-american, african-american and so forth.

People of colour is a collective term that is used to show solidarity between the peoples who fall under this &#39;colour&#39; banner, in the same way that queer is used a solidarity term for all people who fall under the &#39;queer&#39; banner, this is not suggesting that every person of colour refers to themselves in that way, or all the time, it&#39;s the same for queer.

People who fall under the term &#39;queer&#39; will refer to themselves as lesbian, gay, trans etc depending on context, and depending on context, refer to themselves as queer as well, it&#39;s not an either or situation. The term queer is not meant to replace gay, trans etc. because these refer to specific identities (although plenty of people identify just as &#39;queer&#39; because of the explicitly political implications the term has) - but merely to be used when talking about things that affect queer people as a whole or with reference to all non-hetero sexualties, as a collective term, like people of colour.

This is most obvious with things like Queer blocs at rallies/demos/protests - where queer peoples from various &#39;catergories&#39; will organise together, and organisations/groups that organise under the banner &#39;queer&#39; - as to include all queer people and focus on issues that affect everyone that that term applies too."

[Quills]

I&#39;m a lesbian, and I&#39;ve been very active in the gay rights movement since my early teens, and I find the use of the term &#39;queer&#39; distasteful. In fact I find the whole idea of a &#39;gay community&#39; distasteful. It perpetuates the notion that gay people are radically different from &#39;normal&#39; people, and as such need their own culture. As a big supporter of queer theory I reject this idea. There isn&#39;t seperate communities for people who prefer green over purple, is there?

Maybe it&#39;s because I&#39;ve never been especially oppressed (not because of my preference atleast), well, except for when I was visiting Florida with my girlfriend. But most people don&#39;t care where I live, and because of this there isn&#39;t a very active gay community.

[Black Dagger]

I&#39;m a lesbian, and I&#39;ve been very active in the gay rights movement since my early teens, and I find the use of the term &#39;queer&#39; distasteful.

What about it is &#39;distasteful&#39;?

And what is the &#39;gay rights movement&#39;?

In fact I find the whole idea of a &#39;gay community&#39; distasteful.

Why? The &#39;gay community&#39; is simply the social structures that exist around gay peoples, it&#39;s not a separate society.

However, if you&#39;re talking about the &#39;gay community&#39; as in &#39;mainstream&#39; gay culture and community then i agree that it is largely reactionary and conformist - the &#39;pink dollar&#39;, and &#39;pink culture&#39; - a subset of &#39;mainstream&#39; consumer culture, manifested in TV shows like &#39;Queer Eye&#39;, &#39;Queer as Folk&#39;, or &#39;Will and Grace&#39;. But that is not the &#39;gay community&#39; merely a form of it, more radical gay people, political not social queers reject this.

It perpetuates the notion that gay people are radically different from &#39;normal&#39; people, and as such need their own culture.

Hardly. It show that gay people exist, and that &#39;normal&#39; society is hetero-patriarchal, i.e. that it marginalises and oppresses people based on rigid conceptions of gender and sexuality - it has no place for queer peoples. In a heterosexist context therefore, queer culture is a response to oppression, if we can eliminate heteropatriarchy and smash the rigid notions of gender and sexuality that come with this, &#39;queer&#39; should be come irrelevant--&#62; but we&#39;re not there yet.

As a big supporter of queer theory I reject this idea.

As a big supporter of queer theory you reject the queer community? In favour of what? Ignoring sexuality and heterosexism? It&#39;s stupid to oppose the existence of the queer community itself because it is an inevitable development in a heteropatriarchal society. If queer people felt like they fit into the present structure of society, that they we werent oppressed, that we were safe, then a queer community probably wouldnt exist. That a gay/queer community does exist, is testament to the fact that we still live in a heteropatriarchal society.

There isn&#39;t seperate communities for people who prefer green over purple, is there?

No, but then again people arent oppressed or marginalised based on eye-colour. The purpose of having a queer community isn&#39;t and shouldn&#39;t be to separate ourselves from everybody else, it&#39;s about establishing a context where we can interact and organise in safety- and from that foundation attack heteropatriarchy, capitalism, the state and so forth.

Maybe it&#39;s because I&#39;ve never been especially oppressed (not because of my preference atleast)

Maybe, but a lot of people do.

[Quills]

What about it is &#39;distasteful&#39;?

It&#39;s a very aggressive term. It sounds militant and is more likely to alienate people then educate them.

Why? The &#39;gay community&#39; is simply the social structures that exist around gay peoples, it&#39;s not a separate society.

In my experience it is. It&#39;s very divisive and exclusive. Maybe not a &#39;society&#39;, but definately something seperate from mainstream.

However, if you&#39;re talking about the &#39;gay community&#39; as in &#39;mainstream&#39; gay culture and community

I&#39;m not. This is not &#39;gay culture&#39;, this is patriachal heterosexist shit, made as a reaction to real gay culture.

more radical gay people, political not social queers reject this.

Don&#39;t patronise me. I&#39;m just a communist first, a women second, and a lesbian somewhere after that. Though if you want to play "who&#39;s more radical" I will.

In a heterosexist context therefore, queer culture is a response oppression

I&#39;m aware of this. And I do understand it. I just don&#39;t think it&#39;s the most progressive response to have.

&#39;queer&#39; should be come irrelevant--&#62; but we&#39;re not there yet.

How would emphasising differences that don&#39;t exist help us get there?

It&#39;s stupid to oppose the existence of the queer community itself because it is an inevitable development in a heteropatriarchal society.

And poverty is an inevitable development in a capitalist society. Just because happens doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s the right way to go. And I don&#39;t &#39;opose&#39; the existance of the queer culture, it helps a lot of people feel welcome when they wouldn&#39;t otherwise. I just don&#39;t think it should be the main political strategy.

we live in a heteropatriarchal society.

Yes, thank you. As a gay women I am aware of this.

Maybe, but a lot of people do.

Yes, which is why a community exists. But it&#39;s not the way to move on from it.

Don&#39;t get me wrong. I&#39;m not the kind of liberal hippy that thinks all the oppressed peoples of the world should just try to get along and hold hands with the people who hate them, but most people who are prejudice against gay people have simply had limited experience with them. A lot of homophobia, or &#39;homoskepticism&#39; is a reaction to the percieved image of a seperate culture which excludes and rejects them. And the word &#39;queer&#39; is a symbol of that.

[Black Dagger]

You missed a question i edited in to my post,

What is the &#39;gay rights movement&#39;? What does that entail?

What are &#39;gay rights&#39;?

It&#39;s a very aggressive term. It sounds militant and is more likely to alienate people then educate them.

Huh? There is nothing inherently &#39;aggressive&#39; about the word queer. And how is using the term going to alienate anyone? That&#39;s sounds very far-fetched to me. &#39;Hi, i&#39;m queer&#33;&#39; &#39;AHHHH&#33; GET AWAY FROM ME&#33;&#33;&#33;&#39; - i don&#39;t get it. Moreover, people dont get &#39;educated&#39; by terms, but by the people behind them, of course the term queer will not educate people, that&#39;s what queer and pro-queer people are for.

In my experience it is. It&#39;s very divisive and exclusive. Maybe not a &#39;society&#39;, but definately something seperate from mainstream.

Of course queer communities are seperate from the mainstream, why wouldnt they be? It&#39;s not like the &#39;mainstream&#39; accepts queer sexualities.

Don&#39;t patronise me.

Huh? I wasn&#39;t talking to or about you

I&#39;m just a communist first, a women second, and a lesbian somewhere after that. Though if you want to play "who&#39;s more radical" I will.

See above.

I&#39;m aware of this. And I do understand it. I just don&#39;t think it&#39;s the most progressive response to have.

So what should we do?

How would emphasising differences that don&#39;t exist help us get there?

Well your question is premised on a fallacy. Queer is not about emphasisng differences, it&#39;s about organising queer people to fight their oppression, that&#39;s exactly how we&#39;re gonna &#39;get there&#39; - by smashing bourgeois constructions of sexuality and gender. This kind of social revolution will make &#39;queer theory&#39; redundant, and its a revolution that is vital to the success of class revolution, and post-capitalist society.

And poverty is an inevitable development in a capitalist society.

Yup.

Just because happens doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s the right way to go.

It&#39;s the logical way to go. Living in a capitalist, heterosexist society forces certain conditions on us, and we must respond accordingly within the limits of class/heterosexist society.

And I don&#39;t &#39;opose&#39; the existance of the queer culture, it helps a lot of people feel welcome when they wouldn&#39;t otherwise. I just don&#39;t think it should be the main political strategy.

So what should be the main political strategy? The &#39;gay rights movement&#39;?

Yes, thank you. As a gay women I am aware of this.

What was the point of this? You took my comment completely out of context to make it appear that i was stating the obvious or trying to patronise you.

Yes, which is why a community exists. But it&#39;s not the way to move on from it.

So what is the right way then?&#33;&#33;&#33;

but most people who are prejudice against gay people have simply had limited experience with them.

Sure, a lack of experience with gay people is a factor, but the real problem is social and structural, it&#39;s built into the institutions, religions and &#39;values&#39; of the bourgeois state, a lot of people dont&#39; want to have more experiences with gay people, we need to understand why that is - that&#39;s where the notion of a heteropatriarchy steps in, a structure that reproduces and reinforces heterosexism in people, in society.

A lot of homophobia, or &#39;homoskepticism&#39; is a reaction to the percieved image of a seperate culture which excludes and rejects them.

Where are you getting this from? I&#39;ve never heard a homophobe justify their homophobia on the grounds that they felt &#39;excluded&#39; or &#39;rejected&#39; from the gay community or by gay people. That is putting the &#39;blame&#39; for homophobia on gay people, and totally ignores the effects that a heterosexist culture/society has on peoples attitudes to queer people.

If this is the case, what should we do? Dismantle queer organisations? Dismantle queer media? Queer theory? (Why do we need a seperate theory?)

What are meant to do when we do all this, when we assimilate into mainstream heterosexual society, when we become &#39;just like everyone else&#39;, stop talking about &#39;queer issues&#39;, and we&#39;re still not safe? When we still get singled out as deviants? When we&#39;re still not accepted by the &#39;mainstream&#39;? It&#39;s not &#39;gay culture&#39; or the &#39;gay community&#39; that homophobes don&#39;t like, it&#39;s us, the people - themselves, our sexualities.

And the word &#39;queer&#39; is a symbol of that.

Most hetero people dont even understand the meaning of the word.

[Scars]

<<Being queer is more than &#39;just a biological preference&#39;, and has been for a long time.>>

No, it has been made into somthing more than a biological preference. In ancient Greece, most notably Sparta, there was no discrimination against homosexuals or bisexuals because what they were doing was just an expression of ones desires and/or preferences. The act of having sex with someone of the same sex as you was just that, an act- it was not personified in the way that it is now. Homosexuality is not just a practice or a preference, it&#39;s been turned into a sort of species (for lack of a better word) in its own right. Perpetuating this myth of homosexuals as somthing more than homo homo sapiens with a preprogrammed biological preference towards one thing in particular does no one any good and in fact, worsens your position by giving your opponents extra ammunition to attack you with.

<<Queer peoples should not be attacked for reacting in the same way that many other groups in society do when faced with oppression, stereotyping, slurs/insults, and that is create a positive identity culture, one that reinforces a positive image and smashes up the BS created by people with prejudices, building a community for support, education and so forth, based on this common experience. This is what people have done when faced with &#39;racial&#39; oppression and a similar pattern has been followed by peoples faced with sexual oppression.>>

However most of the time you do not &#39;smash up&#39; the myths, you create new ones. Now, I have come to believe that society is based on various myths social myths used to explain and jusifty things (just as they were in the past, only now instead of explaining thunder by saying Zeus is pissed off people explain inequality by saying that it&#39;s a natural part of society and will always exist and so on). Running away and huddling in your own little groups does no one any good. As I&#39;ve said, from a distance it serves to confirm peoples initial prejudices, particularly the more militant wing who openly scorn ALL hetrosexuals.

<<And of course it&#39;s not as simple as &#39;they have different preferences, that&#39;s all&#39;, society doesn&#39;t operate that way. Because of prejudice and social oppression, having a queer sexuality, or a vagina, or brown skin means you get treated differently.>>

Yes, it does. However By perpetuating the myth of difference you ensure that you will continue to be treated differently.

<<Approaching society with a colour blind&#39;/gender &#39;blind&#39;/sexuality &#39;blind&#39; attitude is a thoroughly liberal notion, and speaks of someone who is not a victim of social oppression, &#39;hey stop making a deal of it&#33; We should all just hold hands in unity and forget out differences&#33;&#39; Unfortunately people are not gonna just forget getting lynched or &#39;gay-bashed&#39;.>>

So you presume that I&#39;ve never been a victim of ANY social oppression? Of course, I am simply a privilaged white-boy with nothing better to do with my time, how silly of me to forget&#33; I suffer from serious mental illness, which actually lead me towards the far left as the health system here (which is chronically underfunded, particularly in the area of mental health) failed horribly So I came to the conclusion that there was seriously wrong with the way that the country was being run and I looked for an alternative. But anyway, you&#39;re a dirty faggot. I&#39;m a mental skitzo. In Nazi Germany we&#39;d both be dancing our ways towards the gas chambers.

<<You are obsessed with dismissing all movements/identities that want to exist and fight oppression as an autonomous group. You oppose the idea of non-communist solidarity, black power is an unacceptable as white power to you, the Black Panthers and the KKK are all just &#39;pseudo-nationalists&#39;, yeah? Indigenous organisations, run by Indigenous people are just a distraction and if anyone is serious about doing anything in the society they should join the communist party?>>

I believe that all such issues can and should be dealt with from within a single, unified organisation. The goals are good, getting rid of racism, percecution of homosexuals, etc etc, but teh approach just causes a whole load of new problems.

I will post the rest later, right now I have to go pack. I have a train to catch.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Scars
No, it has been made into somthing more than a biological preference. In ancient Greece, most notably Sparta, there was no discrimination against homosexuals or bisexuals because what they were doing was just an expression of ones desires and/or preferences. The act of having sex with someone of the same sex as you was just that, an act- it was not personified in the way that it is now. Homosexuality is not just a practice or a preference, it&#39;s been turned into a sort of species (for lack of a better word) in its own right. Perpetuating this myth of homosexuals as somthing more than homo homo sapiens with a preprogrammed biological preference towards one thing in particular does no one any good and in fact, worsens your position by giving your opponents extra ammunition to attack you with.

I&#39;ll let BD address the rest of your post, but this bit was crying out for a reply from me.

Sexuality is, and always has been socially embedded. In those societies you cite, sexuality was heavily loaded into a patriarchal system where aristocratic men had sexual relations with young men in a mentoring relationship. It was either that, or male "citizens" (ie upper class men) could have sex with anyone they wanted- male or female. Lesbians were invisible at this point.

Ths proves that sexual acts are never "just acts" but rather are either the recreation of or challenging of societal norms and values.

And as for turning queer people into "a sort of species": what. the. fuck?
You&#39;ve completely and utterly missed the point. I think we all see a place for queer, feminist and other ientity issues within the struggle as a whole, but some of us feel strongly that these particular agendas need to be determined and led by the people concerned. I mean, it would be no good to have a man organising feminist actions and platforms, would it? Same goes for queer ones.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre@Apr 19 2006, 11:33 PM
Sexuality is, and always has been socially embedded. In those societies you cite, sexuality was heavily loaded into a patriarchal system where aristocratic men had sexual relations with young men in a mentoring relationship. It was either that, or male "citizens" (ie upper class men) could have sex with anyone they wanted- male or female. Lesbians were invisible at this point.

Ths proves that sexual acts are never "just acts" but rather are either the recreation of or challenging of societal norms and values.

Right.

There is a modern "social construct" of homosexuality and heterosexuality that is different from the ancient world&#39;s concepts and categories. Those words are of Victorian origin (late 19th century) IIRC.

If that&#39;s what Scars was intending to get at he may be partly right.

But those categories were not the invention of the gay rights movement&#33; (Or queer movement, or whatever.)

They&#39;re the product of deeper social changes involving industrial capitalism, changes in family structure, etc.....

They exist and have to be dealt with.

[Black Dagger]

However most of the time you do not &#39;smash up&#39; the myths, you create new ones.

What myths do queer orgs create? They create more myths than they destroy? I don&#39;t know anyone else that views queer organising as perpetuating queerphobic myths, so support your accusation.

Running away and huddling in your own little groups does no one any good.

Ugh, i can&#39;t believe you&#39;re so ignorant&#33; Really, do you ever read my posts? For the last FUCKING time, queer organisation is not about seperating queers away from society, it&#39;s exactly the opposite -> its about directly engaging with society from a queer perspective, there&#39;s no other way to make social change.

Moreover, who are you to tell queers what is good and not good for us? Or how we should organise?

Would you say to the Black Panther Party as you have just said to me:

"Running away and huddling in your own little groups does no one any good."

Cut the arrogant, patronising crap.

As I&#39;ve said, from a distance it serves to confirm peoples initial prejudices, particularly the more militant wing who openly scorn ALL hetrosexuals.

I don&#39;t know ANY queer who &#39;openly scorn ALL heterosexuals&#39;, that is a homophobic myth. There very well be queer supremascists out there, all 2 of them, but they have no impact, profile or effect on mainstream queer organisation or on queer theory. To criticise ALL queers and queer movements on this basis is completely dishonest, and is a cop-out to presenting any real intelligent response.

Yes, it does. However By perpetuating the myth of difference you ensure that you will continue to be treated differently.

ARGH you do my head in&#33;

Stop blaming oppressed groups for their own oppression&#33;

Black/queer/indigenous/etc peoples will continue to be &#39;treated&#39; differently, i.e. OPPRESSED, cut the liberal euphemisms, by non-black/non-queer/non-indigenous/etc society until racism, sexism, heterosexism etc. that exists in society is eradicated. Saying that "I&#39;m queer&#33;", or organising queers in an organisation to fight structural oppression and for sexual liberation does not create structural oppression, nor does it create queerphobia, the very existance of queer people -> combined with a queerphobic culture, does that. Ignoring queer oppression won&#39;t help alleviate this oppression, neither will joining the PLP or some &#39;communist party&#39; because they don&#39;t give a shit about nor do they really understand queer oppression. Who does? The fucking queers&#33;

Your answer is assimilation, if we were talking about black people in the US, i would call you a racist.

So you presume that I&#39;ve never been a victim of ANY social oppression? Of course, I am simply a privilaged white-boy with nothing better to do with my time, how silly of me to forget&#33;

I empathise with you, but that doesnt mean that your ideas are any more valid, people need self-determination, self-empowerment, not assimilation.

I believe that all such issues can and should be dealt with from within a single, unified organisation.

That&#39;s absurd, how can one single unified organisation possibly deal with all forms of structural oppression equally, with the same sensibility, knowledge and effort as black/queer/indigenous/etc- centred and organised group?

Moreover, what if this is not what people want? And the existance of a whole host of organisations run by Black people, Indigenous peoples etc are testament to this - they understand that they, and they alone understand THEIR situation the best, how to fight it, and that they should be the ones to emancipate themselves.

&#39;The emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class&#39;

What you are advocating is akin to telling working class people that they should all join one big unified organisation with the bourgeoisie, so that they can all &#39;fight capitalism&#39; together - what a fucking joke&#33;

Do you support working-class only organisation?

People have tried to run parties or organisations in this way, and they always fail because of conflict between male and female members, or indigenous/non-indigenous or queer/non-queer, african/non-african - because the people who are not part of those oppressed groups do not really understand how to run these struggles, and it&#39;s insulting the oppressed to think that white hetero men have all the answers - that they know what&#39;s best for everybody else - that&#39;s paternalism.

What if black people, queers, Indigenous peoples etc. don&#39;t want to join your single unified organisation? What if they want to organise themselves? You will condemn them, you will condemn self-determination for the oppressed as &#39;pseudo nationalism&#39; and that is the bankruptcy of your ideology.

The goals are good, getting rid of racism, percecution of homosexuals, etc etc, but teh approach just causes a whole load of new problems.

Yeah, like the oppressed will be in control of their struggle, oh noes&#33;
Those silly faggots don&#39;t know what&#39;s good for them&#33;